Liam and Ronny, at the risk of getting in the middle of a tense discussion, I wanted to throw my two cents in here, in an attempt to bridge the gap between you.
Liam, I understand what you are saying about the apparent discrepancy between practicing NFP and ABC. I myself have questioned at times the quasi-contracteptive mentality that can appear, at least in an abstract way. I do not come to the same conclusions as you do, but I appreciate your difficulty with the teaching.
Ronny, I also side with you in your defense of Pope John Paul II, especially the importance of not separating the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. Even though the unitive aspect of marriage may not have been so forcefully taught in the past, that does not mean it is not a genuine outgrowth of the traditional understanding of marriage. In fact, I do agree that it is.
However, I think your difference of opinion hinges on the deliberate choice to have conjugal relations during infertile times. I, myself, have given this issue some thought in the past; wondering how it could be that the Church promotes NFP, while it seems that couples could use it for their own selfish ends - that is, for avoiding pregnancy.
Though I admit I am not yet fully convinced of it by way of the witness of many real-life examples, I have learned that the Church's experience with NFP has taught Her the use of the method itself actually helps to bring about a more generous attitude in the couple that uses it. That is, the method itself helps to build virtue.
According to this experience, it is said that the hypothetical state, in which a couple is supposedly using the method to selfishly avoid pregnancy, cannot be held for any substantial length of time. The discipline involved in avoiding conjugal relations during fertile times means that over a period of time, one of four outcomes must eventually happen.
(1) Their selfishness will overtake their openness to life, and they will return to their use of ABC. This is because they are no longer willing to abstain from sexual relations during fertile times.
(2) They may achieve a pregnancy without intentionally willing it, possibly by having conjugal relations during a borderline fertile time of the woman's cycle. But, because of their openness to life, they joyfully accept the unexpected gift.
(3) Their openness to life will lead them to deepen their love for each other, and they will deliberately try to achieve a pregnancy.
(4) Due to a genuine, serious reason to avoid pregnancy (i.e. medical, financial, etc.) they continue to abstain from conjugal relations during fertile times. Though they would like to have more children, they realize that it would be unwise to attempt to achieve a pregnancy in their current state. They accept this cross, and continue avoiding conjugal relations during fertile times, though they honestly wish they did not have to do so.
(cont'd)
So this is the logic that underpins the Church's insistence on the use of NFP, and why Pope John Paul II promotes it so vigorously. Because, when it is used faithfully, either there is going to be a happy outcome, or else it provides the couple with a means of avoiding pregnancy, when such grave circumstances warrant it.
The notion of the couple who selfishly uses NFP as a means of avoiding pregnancy is one that cannot sustainably exist over any length of time, because the discipline required to prolong it is too great for any couple of presumed selfish interests. I hope this helps.
Must....resist....urge....to....touch....keyboard.
...again.....on....this.....subject....on...this..
....blog!!!!
This was my reply to this on my blog:
JCecil lays down an easy challenge:
JCecil: Anyone who disagrees, please find any canonized saint, pope or council of bishops prior to Humanae Vitae that specifically says natural family planning is an acceptable practice.
Gosh, I hope St. Paul and the bible are good enough!
1 Corinthians
5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.
To which JCecil replied:"The passage you select not only does not specifically say that one can have sex without intending procreation, but if it did even imply such a thing, it makes no reference to NFP. In other words, the very passage you site interpreted the way you interpret it provides justification for artificial contraception."
The answer is obvious and this was my reply:
Well you're not a baby JCecil, so I didn't think you needed it spelled out for you. Nonetheless here were your requirements:
1. The Commenter had to disagree with you. No problem there. I think your post borders on moronic.
2. Had to have words from a canonized saint. St. Paul fits the bill.
3. Prior to Humanae Vitae. I guarantee 1 Corinthians were written before 1968
Now, the term "Natural Family Practice" isn't even in Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul uses the term "periodic continence" in paragraph 21. So I think if a term of similar meaning was OK for Paul VI, it should be good enough for you too!
Periodic continence means of course recurring or reappearing.
Continence means the exercise of self-restraint in sexual matters.
The version of 1 Cor 5 says "deprive yourself" Deprive as in going without, exercising restraint and of course in context it is clear he means from the marital act.
This is EXACTLY what NFP is, the periodic deprivation, or self restraint from sexual intercourse and of course for the Catholic, this is done prayerfully and for serious and grave reasons.
So there you go, a canonized saint, prior to Humanae Vitae giving the thumbs up to Natural Family Planning!
Wait, I'm confused -- who is Liam?
BTW, I want to reply to jcecil3's post (though I do hesitate on account of the mixed signals put out by jcecil3 concerning whether he is really interested in discussing a topic that bores him but keeps coming up on his blog anyway) as well as Paul's comment, but I am, alas, getting ready to go out of town myself today and needing to do something to justify my salary from my employer in the meantime.
Jcecil3's objection that he has articulated here has only become clearer to me in our recent exchanges in another thread. It is not a new objection among dissenters, however, so I probably should have tuned into it earlier.
Anyhow, for the time being, I will state that part of the confusion here lies in the moral difference between the evil of contraception and the evil of employing NFP for unjust reasons. The Church argues that the moral defect in contraception lies in the object of the act itself (speaking here in the context of the three traditional fonts of morality, object, intention and circumstances). As such, the object in contracepted intercourse is intrinsically evil, and thus no right intention (or circumstances, for that matter) can make the act moral. In contrast, the object of non-contraceptive intercourse between lawful spouses is good simply considered, though it like any act with a good or indifferent object can still be vitiated by a bad intention or circumstances. A non-contraceptive act of coitus between lawful spouses during the infertile period for unjust cause is defective in its intention, not in its object, and thus its moral fault is arises differently from a contracepted act. The flip side, with which jcecil3 would likely take issue, is that there can be just cause (and thus good intention) for such an act as well. There is certainly more to be said on this matter (such as how the necessity of analyzing the morality of each act on its own merits and not as a totality with other acts may be relevant here), but I will leave these to the side right now for reasons already stated.
I do have a couple of quick tangential points, though, of why this irritating issue keeps dogging jcecil3. One, dissent from Humanae Vitae was the rallying point of critics within the Church in the modern era. Much of the theological apparatus constructed by dissenters in its wake was designed to justify their dissent on that matter, and even though some of them are now more interested in other issues, they use that same apparatus for their other causes. As contraception goes, so goes the theological framework within which they operate.
Two, and related, the problem with dissent on the issue of contraception is ultimately not just about contraception, but rather the underlying philosophical assumptions that support the dissenting view and manifests itself in errors upon other matters. Here is where the phrase "contraceptive mentality" properly applies -- it refers to a whole host of theoretical commitments that one must make in order to justify contraception within his or her ethical system. Thus, jcecil3 gets frustrated when he thinks that he has safely circumscribed the topic of contraception from a blog entry dealing with sexual morality, marriage or family but his readers keep pestering him about it anyway. That is because his readers are seeing logical connections between the issues that he does not. For those who care to check out more about what I have to say on this point, see this little article from my graduate school days: Truth or Consequences: The Pathology of a Contraceptive Anthropology.
"Wait, I'm confused -- who is Liam?
"
Sorry, Ronny, I'm getting to that age when everything sort of blurs together. I got Jecil3 temporarily confused with a commenter I was having a discussion with on another blog.
So, JCecil3, do you support the idea which some young people would like to espouse, "There are seven kids in this family, therefore our parents have had sex only seven times"?
Also, if a couple should only have sexual intercourse for the purpose of procreation, what of a couple who discovered after they married that they are physically unable to have children? Should they never have sexual intercourse again? I know this is not specifically addressing your issue, but I am curious about your view. If you have addressed these points elsewhere in your blog, forgive me--I am a first-time reader.
Jane,
My wife and I married just over three years ago. We were chaste before marriage (at least physically, though I confess my heart may not have always been right - which I have taken to the sacrament of reconciliation).
Anyway, after our wedding day, we wanted to have children, and we used NFP in the opposite sense described in my post. Since we have married, we have never had conjugal relations during her infertile period - not once!!!!!
Yet, it took us three years to conceive (the baby is on the way - and we haven't had congugal relations during her pregnancy). So, your syllogism doesn't follow that seven kids means a couple only had sex seven times.
I am basically arguing that if the Vatican is right about the issue of contraception, knowledge of the fertility cycle should lead couples to do as my wife and I have done, and if they want to limit children, they should truly abstain entirely until they ready to conceive.
Elena,
To add to my comments on your blog, Paul specifically states that the period of continence is for prayer - not for the purpose of avoiding conception. You are reading into the passage something that simply is not there. If it were there, Saint Augustine and the other saints I mention would have spoke differently about the purpose of the conjugal act than they did.
Furthermore, it is impossible that Paul was advocating conjugal acts during a period of infertility when nobody on the entire planet ever knew there was such a thing as a period of the of infertility until the nineteenth century!
Paul and Ronny,
I very much appreciate that you are acknowledging the question I am raising seriously. You seem to have gotten the gist of the "apparent" internal contradiction I am pointing out. I have been blogging for over a year, and you are the first readers opposed to my points of view to acknowledge the point I am raising, even if you are ultimately headed toward proposing solutions that are different than the solutions I would reach. I can respect that even if we wind up disagreeing in the end.
To follow up on Ronny's paraphrase of my own "boredom" with this topic, it is an accurate paraphrase and seems to be accurate framing of the situation. I was born in 1965, and the issue of contraception is not very important to me personally since I have no desire to use it, and see no harm done to others in the Vatican holding its position.
Yet, Ronny is correct that an entire framework has been developed by those who withheld assent from this teaching, and I work out of that inherited framework (inherited from people at least 20 or 30 years older than I am). What interest me most is the way that framework addresses issues that I consider more important - the Church's treatment of women and gays.
(continued)
To anticipate a bit where Ronny seems to be headed, from this inherited framework, the question can be raised whether members of the hierarchy may actually be committing injustices to these people, not unlike the injustices committed by members of the hierarchy leading to anti-semiticism, slavery, the inquisitions and the crusades.
This inherited framework seems to me to be a purely "Catholic" framework in the sense that the way it approaches these questions relies entirely on the same principles conservatives use to defend the current structure (i.e. - the same definitions of infallibility, and appeal to the same sources - such as ecumenical councils, papal writings, the Scriptures, etc....).
Where many Catholic bloggers tend to write as though Catholicism is a monolithic structure that defines itself entirely as adherence to the current teachings of the Pope, this framework represents the same tradition that allowed Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine to be in disagreement over key issues,....,and Pope Zozimus and Augustine to be in disagreement,....,etc...
In this framework, where infallible definitions have not been made, debate is not only possible, but to be encouraged so that clarity can later be reached. Truth does not simply come from the top down - but from the debates of theologians. This is a framework that actually makes sense of why we quote fathers and doctors of the Church who were never Popes, and sometimes disagreed with the Pope in office while they writing.
In other words, the theological academy is a source of truth that helps inform the Pope as he comes to an infallible definition. Before an infallible definition is made, teachings are examined "critically" and careful attention is paid to weeding out the inconsistencies and unintended and often unconscious effects of social sin inherent to a non-infallible teaching are prophetically challenged under the guidence of the Holy Spirit - often in a way that initially seems critical of the magisterium, but ultimately in a way that aids the magisterium in avoiding what will ultimately be known as error.
Peace!
Jcecil3, I think I see where you are going with your line of reasoning. Because we have more information about fertility than our ancestors, the burden of responsibility is also higher, such that we ought not have conjugal relations at all during times we are reasonably certain are infertile.
I am not familiar with the entire corpus of writings on this matter. Maybe you or someone else knows when the idea of having recourse to natural rhythms of fertility for regulating births first appeared. Was it a concession of Paul VI, in an attempt to win over the Catholic proponents of ABC?
(cont'd)
If what you are saying is right, then not only would it be wrong to abuse NFP to avoid conception, but it would also be seriously sinful to have any conjugal relations at all during infertile times.
To add to my comments on your blog, Paul specifically states that the period of continence is for prayer - not for the purpose of avoiding conception.
Hmmmm, now what do you suppose a married couple might pray about? Could it be to have a good marriage? Could it be to be able to come up with the mortgage next month?
Could it be that they find the right medication or right doctor for Little Johnny's medical problems? Could it be so the mom feels less overwhelmed with housework and childcare? Could it be for the health of the mother? Could it be that the heavy weight of grief in the heart of the husband and/or wife over the death of a parent, sibling, friend or child could become bearable? Could it be for them to become more grounded in Christ with Him as a more equal partner in the marriage? Couldn't any or all of those reasons be "grave" or "serious." Oh and maybe the most important question... who made you the judge of what married couples feel compelled to pray about?
If it were there, Saint Augustine and the other saints I mention would have spoke differently about the purpose of the conjugal act than they did.
Interesting thing this Catholic Church. Just because you are a canonized DOCTOR doesn't give you infallibility.
Since we have married, we have never had conjugal relations during her infertile period - not once!!!!!
Yet, it took us three years to conceive (the baby is on the way - and we haven't had congugal relations during her pregnancy).
That seems VERY scrupulous to me. And that's NOT a virtue!!
Ell, where did this idea come from, that husband and wife should not have conjugal relations, unless there is an explicit desire for conception and a reasonable certainty that it was possible? It seems to me that jcecil3 is saying being open to the possibility, that we are doing nothing to prevent God from doing His work of Creation, is just not enough.
It's amazing how someone with very liberal views on other aspects of Church teaching could be so dogmatic and literalist on this point - ignoring the philosophical framework that JP2 has laid on this topic in his TOTB. This is that which justifies the unitive aspect of marriage, which he seems to deny exists.
Because, if what jcecil3 is saying is true, the Church should never permit anyone to marry who is beyond childbearing age, or knowingly infertile. Or, for a married couple who finds themselves infertile (if such a thing can be known with certainty), it means they should never have conjugal relations again.
During the time jcecil3 and his wife were trying to conceive for three years, did it dawn on him that, if they actually were infertile, their actions would have been gravely sinful under his paradigm.
And did it also dawn on him that, for all the certainty NFP provides, it is not guaranteed. That's why we need to be open to conception, even when unexpected.
I think you are right. He is being way too scrupulous, especially in light of those things which, by their nature, cannot be known with complete certainty. That's why the Church promotes openness to conception, rather than rigidity in when conjugal relations are permissible. I've known couples on NFP who conceived during a definitively infertile time. It could happen anytime, unless artificial barriers are erected.
I just wonder JCecil if your wife realizes that after menopause you'll be living like brother and sister.
Ell, that seems like a pretty high threshold for married couples to avoid doing that which is sinful, but under jcecil's philosophical framework, such a logical consequence would seem to be absolutely mandatory.
Though he claims to be upholding the Church's traditional teaching on the meaning and purpose of marriage, I've never seen or heard of a requirement for couples past childbearing age to avoid conjugal relations. I think he has taken something out of context, and, as such, does not realize the full implication of what he is saying.
It may be his personal view. If that's the case, he and his wife can deal with how they are going to live out their marriage among themselves. That's up to them. But it seems he has held that what he believes is actually traditional Church teaching, which has traditionally, and still does, actually apply to all married couples. And if I understand correctly, he says that this teaching has been distorted around the time of Paul VI, and later by JP2.
Any clarification, jcecil?
Jcecil, consider the following verse from Scripture: "And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren..." (Luke 1:36)
We all know that St. John the Baptist was conceived through normal conjugal relations. The Church has never claimed otherwise.
So, if conjugal relations are sinful, except when engaged in solely for the purpose of procreation, how was it that Zacharias and Elizabeth, a God-fearing couple, had conjugal relations, knowing that Elizabeth was barren, and past childbearing age? Under your framework, they had no business doing so. If what you claim is correct, why was there no mention in Scripture of the sinful actions of this holy couple? And why has the Church never brought to the attention of the faithful the sinfulness of their actions?
I think this proves that your beliefs on when conjugal relations are permissible are tangential to the central teaching of the Church on the matter. If you and your wife choose to live your life in that way, as a sacrificial offering to God, may you be blessed in your pursuit of holiness. But that is not a requirement for all married couples.
And so, since conjugal relations during infertile times are not sinful, thus NFP is ipso facto not immoral for this very reason. NFP could be abused, by being used selfishly, to avoid conception, but I attempted to show in my earlier post, how that is not sustainable indefinitely.
Paul,
You are catching the drift of my thinking on the subject. And furthermore, I am arguing that prior to the twentieth century this was the constant teaching of the Church. Indeed, there were priests who refused to marry people who were known to be infertile, and canon law still forbids marriage to those who are impotent.
The reasoning that came to justify conjugal relations for infertile couples was two fold, and I accept it. First, it was argued that infertility is not chosen and is therefore not an intentional act to block procreation. Second, it is argued that infertility may not be a permanent condition.
Pius XI highlighted these points, and in Castii Connubbii, also stated that couples expressing conjugal love during periods of infertility do not sin. He was the first magisterial voice to address this issue, because the fertility cycle was not discovered until the late nineteenth century. However, Pius XI was not advocating the deliberate planning of the conjugal act during a period of infertility. Rather, he was saying that if it simply happens that you unknowingly had relations dueing this period, you would not be sinning as long as your heart was open to procreation.
And he is quite forceful in saying each and every act must be open to procreation in the sense of no intention of making procreation impossible during the act. Indeed, he was so forceful that I have read arguments that the letter should be considered infallible!
I don't agree with those arguments, because I would hold only an Apostolic Constitution is the proper vehicle to convey infallibility, and even then, other conditions must be met. An encyclical cannot be considered infallible. Nevertheless, my point is that Pius XI was very adament and clear that in our hearts, each and every sexual act must be open to procreation and nothing can be done deliberately to preclude this possibility. The issue is intent.
According to the thinking of Pius XI and the rest of tradition before him, it is not sinful to have sex during periods of infertility if you are not paying attention to the fertility cycle and not intending to cirmvent the conception process. It is wrong to pay attention to the fertility cycle in order to deliberately avoid conception!
(continued)
Why would a liberal make this argument?
I have stated why in the original post and will expand a bit.
The first expansion I would make is that the Gospel calls us to avoid judgment of other people and focus on our own sins. Thus, I feel compelled to be harder on myself than I would be on others. While I may feel that non-procreative conjugal relations should not be deliberately sought, who am I to judge those who think otherwise.
Second, Paul VI opened the door to avoiding judgment based on intend by introducing the idea of "responsible parenthood" and implying that there are moral reasons a couple may even be obligated to temporarily limit the number of children.
Thus, in stating that I cannot judge others when they make a decision other than my own, I am not merely interpreting the Gospel privately. Pope Paul VI is explicitly telling me that some couples are right to wish to deliberately seek to express "unitive love" without any intention to procreate.
Of course, Paul VI is contradicting his predecessor and the thinking of the saints. Indeed, he is even contradicting himself when he says that artificial means cannot be used to do this. Nevertheless, he is the Pope, and if I must accept what he says with religious submission of mind and will, I must accept that, in the development of doctrine, the Church has come to realize that there are instances when a couple can engage in conjugal relations with absolutely no intent to procreate.
There are instances where the unitive dimension of married love takes precedence over the procreative dimension.
If this is true, which I must accept according to LG 25, then it is legitimate to ask if there might be other instances where the unitive dimension of married love can take precedence over the procreative dimension?
Could artificial contraception be acceptable so long it is only used as a temporary means within the context of marriage?
And are there instances where, like an infertile couple, we can argue that the intention of blocking procreation is not present for a couple that cannot conceive.
Could a gay couple willing to adopt children be the moral equivalent of an infertile couple?
Ronny states that:
"....the object in contracepted intercourse is intrinsically evil, and thus no right intention (or circumstances, for that matter) can make the act moral"
This is not valid reasoning. When the Church refers to an act as an object, she then judges the object according to the ends, means and circumstances. No object, considered by itself, is inherently evil.
For example, firing a gun is not inherently evil. Firing a gun with the intent to harm an innocent being is inherently evil.
The object is conjugal relations that are deliberately closed to procreation.
(continued)
The end is already established by Paul VI as just - responsible parenthood sometimes dictates that parents express unitive love with no intent to procreate.
The circumstances are within a permanent bond of monogamous marriage.
The means are either NFP or artificial contraception.
Excluding permanent sterilization or abortificients, why would other artificial means be more inherently evil than NFP?
My answer is simply that I cannot intelligibly answer such a question. I honestly do not know, and nothing I have seen written by Paul VI or John Paul II adequately answers this question.
Peace!
6b0bd7 be02011c2a
excel mortgage calculator excel mortgage calculator excel mortgage calculator // pulmonary hypertension viagra pulmonary hypertension viagra pulmonary hypertension viagra
Commenting by HaloScan
