Posted on 05/23/2008 6:26:42 PM PDT by Salvation
Even NFP can be abused, it is true.
But abstinence is of a different order of moral intent than sexual activity, since having sex is never a necessary action of which the failure to undertake would be culpable.
I have noticed that there seems to be a better understanding of NFP through out the medical community. At least with my midwife. She asked very reasonable questions, such as if abstience was hard since women tend to desire sex more when they are ovulating and how it is practiced before a cycle returns after birth. This indicates at least a basic understanding of how it works and a general respect for the priniciples behind it. Of course, midwives tend to favor the more natural approached to women’s health in general.
Just out of curiosity (and it might help me to understand better where you're coming from theologically) was that a typo?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Our “surprise” continues to be a great blessing in our family. He’s a wonderfully good natured person.
God does know best.
Glad to see you back.
By your reasoning, a couple incapable of conceiving a child should not have sex?Strawman argument there "Rev". Won't wash, isn't what was said. If infertile married couples have sex, sometimes we find out they aren't fully infertile. Those that are by God's Will still leave themselves open to His Will, got it?
Petronski and I are firm believers in NFP. I’m totally open to having kids esp. now that my mother’s health is in question.
Wonderful article, Salvation. NFP bump!
A lot of folks confuse NFP with the calendar method of days gone by. I use a combo of both. God knows what’s what. Now if the men would only be as frisky as us ladies around ovulation instead of running for the hills :O)
No, I don’t ‘get it.’ The Roman theory of marriage as sacrament and prohibition on contraception is rooted in Aristotelian philosophy and certain of the fathers such as Clement - it’s rooted in the notion of what is ‘natural’ vs. what is ‘unnatural.’
Humans are equipped for sex not only as an instrument of procreation, but for pleasure as well. A great deal of sex takes place in the animal kingdom that is non-procreative but for purposes of conflict resolution or avoidance, food exchange and it would seem, simply, pleasure.
Beyond that - take a look at St. Paul in his instructions to the Corinthian Church regarding celibacy and chastity. Paul certainly roots his opinions in a companionate view of marriage. Contraceptives were known in the ancient near east, but their is no mention of the practice of pregnancy prevention in the New Testament.
Again, none of the good folk supporting the Roman prohibition on contraception on this thread will directly address the issue, the infertile aside - can sex without the possibility of pregnancy be moral - should post-menopausal women or pregnant women have sex with their husbands? The issue, as Rome has framed it and as it exists in classical Roman theology, is that sex without the possibility of procreation, is sin.
Are condoms de facto immoral? Should spermicidal jelly or condoms, for instance, be made more available in Africa with its high rate of heterosexual AIDS? Can a married couple practice anal sex, fellatio or cunninglingus? Must a married couple in financial straits remain celibate if they feel they could not support a child? For them to utilize any means that would avoid conception is immoral? Such a view is simply silly and unbiblical. I feel sorry for the folk who reduce married sex to simply a guilt-ridden instrument of procreation and rob it of its depth and richness within the covenant of marriage. The author of Hebrews enjoins us to honor the marriage bed without any qualification, without reference to procreation. The Song of Solomon celebrates a lusty sexuality between a man and a woman, quite explicit in the Hebrew, without any reference to procreation - the human body, the lover, is celebrated for his or her own sake.
Marriage is a covenant of companions and exists for its own sake, not merely for the purpose of procreation. In the archetypal story of Genesis, God creates Eve not for the birthing of a child, but as Adam’s helpmate, his companion.
The social sciences, human experience, common sense and Christian theology stand againt Rome’s opposition to family planning. Happily, most American Catholics disregard Rome’s teaching on this matter.
Don’t worry about what presbyrev says. I’m a NFP believing, natural birthing believing Roman Catholic. We’ll outnumber the contracepting protestants soon enough.
I wouldn't put it that way. It's more about the wholeness or the nature of the act.
What do we think about the Romans who ate and then made themselves sick so they could eat some more? Don't we consider that intrinsically perverse, revolting not just because puking is revolting (by definition?) but because, whatever the fallibility of Aristotle, we think that eating is FOR nourishment, that the mastication and swallowing are just the beginning part of an hours long nutritional process, and that to break it up and frustrate it by unnatural emesis is almost emblematic of the fractured state of fallen man.
In thinking about this, I find that the word "artificial" in "artificial birth control" is important. There is a natural birth control technique, and it's well known. Chastity among the unmarried is not generally considered perverse or unnatural, is it?
When I was a Protestant I thought that the Catholic view arose out the Church's alleged aversion to people having any fun. As time went by I saw wives sort of throwing themselves at their husbands like a sop to Cerberus, to hush their whining because there was no "real" "practical" reason, since they'd rendered themselves infertile, to deny what Kant supposedly called "the mutual abuse of bodies."
"After all," said a friend, "it doesn't take that long, and afterwards he'll go to sleep and I can get back to my book."
In this view the playful or urgent side of sexual intercourse is exaggerated to the point that, if it were possible, the animal side of human nature would be sundered from that which makes us human. The notion that sexual intercourse is, at its best and properly, the deliberate and considered physical joining of mature saints who honor and cherish one another and have committed themselves to do so for the rest of their lives is lost in a the notion of a vacation from reality and humanity, or of the mere quieting of an appetite.
AND, with contraception (and abortion) the generally more insistent urge to merge of the male is not so likely to be brought up into the human realm of deliberate choice because part of the act itself is excised from it.
It is also interesting to remember the promises made about ABC. There would be a reduction in unwanted pregnancy and divorce. I am 60 years old and I remember the conversation (and believed the promises.) Some time back I was discussing this with a woman maybe 10 years younger than I and she had no recollection of all that was said before Griswold v. Connecticut when states could prohibit the sale of contraceptives even to married people. Those promises were broken and have been forgotten, except when they are re-made to argue for free or reduced-price contraception for college kids or the poor.
Our culture now generally assumes that chastity is a disease for which intercourse is the cure, and the ABC-enabled sundering of sexual activity from full humanity has not worked out well for us.
That'll do for an opening articulation of "the other" view. It's not well-expressed and it's incomplete, but I hope it presents the thinking comprehensibly.
I agree with you - in the first sentence of your post - and that is the essence of the issue & the source of the disagreement between the pro and con positions on contraception.
The nature of ‘the act’ of sexual expression between a husband and wife is that they become one flesh - the first and primary end of their relationship is companionship and unity. Secondarily, the end of sexual expression in marriage may be for procreation, but that is not the radical nature of the sex act; it is the sexual expression (and sex is only one component of the contract and covenant of marriage) of a relationship of mutuality and care.
I’m sure the participants in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre said the same thing about Protestants. “We’ll outnumber the Protestants soon enough.” Lovely sentiments.
A Protestant position regarding contraception would include the idea of freedom of conscience - to use or not to use; when and how to utilize family planning methods.
They’ll be plenty of us homeschooling Protestants with a full-orbed Christian worldview saving civilization with our families - small, medium and large. Don’t worry. We’ll let the Roman Catholics help.
AGREE. THE LESS THERE ARE OF YOU THE BETTER. Post stupid comments trying associate me with murdering mobs and you’ll get the same response in kind. Goodbye!
The nature of the act of sexual expression between a husband and wife is that they become one flesh - the first and primary end of their relationship is companionship and unity.
Does the part ofter the dash explain the part before the dash?
Secondarily, the end of sexual expression in marriage may be for procreation, but that is not the radical nature of the sex act; it is the sexual expression (and sex is only one component of the contract and covenant of marriage) of a relationship of mutuality and care.
You got a source for this? Despite the great admiration for making whoopee in the Song of Songs, I would imagine those folks knew the usual relationship between "baby carriage" and "love and marriage", and I'm saying that the sexual act in all its fullness would include procreation just as the chewing and swallowing act in all their fullness (so to speak) include nutrition.
I think there is a gnostic tinge maybe (this is not an argument, not at all, it's kind of a "here's where I may try to go with this" statement) to separating the sexual act from its social, economic, and biological side and making it "radically" about the relationship between husband and wife simpliciter. In fact I think that a lot of the pressure to "perform" (perceived and real) comes from that divorce.
Again, it's no kind of argument, but ABC was touted as the great hope for marital sexual frustration and for illegitimacy, remember? It SURE didn't work out that way.
Principle for consideration: Just because Chimpanzees do something doesn't mean it's not perverse. Goats masturbate. The occasional ram (I ran sheep and goats for a while - goats are cooler - but stinkier) will attempt to mount another ram. (If all he mounts are other rams he ends up in the pot.) And certainly ewes will overeat - with disastrous consequences. So the argument from "what critters do" to "what an act 'is'" is not a slam-dunk.
I did get a snarky doctor once ask what I was doing for birth control and then made the “oh rythmn” comment. To which I, never known to back down from a confrontation, snapped right back “No, I said NFP, using the sympto-thermal method. There’s a significant difference and you should you that.”
I was being seen for upper right quadrant pain, so I wasn’t even sure why birth control factored into the conversation. And snarky doctor was worthless and clueless. Turned out, I was pregnant after all. Which I figured out all on my own. All three of our kids are NFP babies....not that we used NFP to conceive them. Just that we slacked off on the rules enough until someone showed up. That way we still got the thrill of a sort of surprise pregnancy without the total and complete shock.
I find it hilarious that those who take an oath to refrain from sex issue decrees of regulations, i.e. climaxing from male on female oral sex is Ok but somehow the sperm is sacred and only should be “naturally” ejaculated into the vagina thus climaxing from female on male is a “sin”. Some artificial contraceptives should be avoided (Those that do not prevent conception i.e. the “pill”) but those who say your soul is in peril if spontaneous sex between a married couple who happen to use a condom for instance is ARROGANCE. Where is this condemned by God not from “traditions” of men who take a vow of chastity?
God's Words, mutual agreement and a Spirit filled conscious, that is all when it comes to the marriage bedroom.
Lately I’m being a slacker too especially since I’m getting older and want my mother to have some good news for a change this year. Most people are still snippy when it comes to NFP until one points out the dangers of chemical birth control for women!
I’ve never been told that sperm is sacred by a priest but OK. I don’t think anyone’s soul is in danger just because they use contraception either. It’s your personal life though so I’m not really going to comment further.
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.