Quote:
Originally Posted by cagnew  So, once again, I asked the question and looked for an answer. I read the NFP material, the Priests For Life site, the Catechism, etc. All fallible.
|
I'm not sure how fallible I would consider the Catechism. That is the official voice of the magesterium, so I would be very hesitant to go against that. I certainly would not give more weight to St. Augustine or any other saint than I would to the Catechism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cagnew Enter “Casti Connubii,” a papal encyclical issued in 1931… ex cathedra. Pope Pius XI’s statements in this document are infallible, meaning that they come straight from the Holy Spirit, and all Catholics are bound to this teaching. Nothing can change it, nothing can declare it null and void, nothing can modify it.
|
The way I understood it, the only "ex cathedra" statements were the Marian dogmas, though I understand that certain encyclicals, including Casti Connubii, are also considered to be ex cathedra, so for the sake of argument, I could agree that Casti Connubii is infallible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cagnew Marriage has one sole, primary purpose: to procreate and educate children. This is also the primary purpose of sex. Here is a quote from the document:
“For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right [sex] there are secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
It’s interesting that when I learned about the purpose of marriage, I learned (or at least perceived) that these two purposes were equal. That was wrong. But, I digress.
|
Even if the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act are not equal, one can not exist without the other. The procreative aspect needs to be emphasized more to argue against birth control and NFP to avoid for selfish reasons while the unitive aspect needs to be emphasized when arguing against artificial insemination and IVF.
From the CCC 2367 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children."
It is true that an openness to life is absolutely essential in marriage. Using NFP to avoid children throughout the entire marriage would be contrary to Catholic teaching. I have some friends who are infertile but still understand that a vocation to marriage is a vocation to parenthood and are looking at adoption options. I'm not saying that adoption is required, but I believe that every married couple needs to figure out how to answer God's call to parenthood, even if it is only as a spiritual example due to a physical condition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cagnew Now, keeping all that in mind, here is another quote from the encyclical.
“…Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of the family circumstances. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
The best way to sum it up is to quote a source I have been reading: “To summarize: the only difference between artificial contraception and NFP is that artificial contraception frustrates the power of the marriage act itself, while NFP frustrates its primary purpose (by subordinating the procreation of children to other things).”
|
I think that you're right that this is obviously forbidding artificial contraception. I come to a different conclusion as far as NFP is concerned. It sounds to me like this is saying that it IS OK to abstain if you have serious reasons to not have another child right now, but it is not OK to go ahead with the sexual act without proper respect to its natural power and purpose. If I understand correctly, you believe that NFP does not give proper respect to the primary purpose of the sexual act: procreation.
I think that this is something very important for couples to consider. The argument for NFP to avoid pregnancy in certain circumstances goes something like this:
-It is OK to abstain in order to prevent conception when serious enough reasons to do so exist.
-It is OK to, with proper respect for the primary purpose of the sexual act, engage in the sexual act when temporarily or permanently infertile.
-God created women to be fertile some of the time and infertile some of the time and to create observable changes in her body during these fertile and infertile periods
-Therefore, It is OK to, with proper respect for the primary purpose of the sexual act, engage in the sexual act during the observably infertile times and abstain at other times in order to prevent conception when serious enough reasons to do so exist.
Let me know if you disagree with my premises or if my conclusion is in any way illogical. I'll blame it on lack of sleep and try again. I think that wrapping your mind around on how to engage in the sexual act while infertile can be done with proper respect to its primary purpose can be done is difficult.
In my own life, I have not ovulated for almost two years since the conception of my daughter. In this time, my husband and I come together for the good of our marriage and family even though we know that it is very unlikely that our relations will result in new life. We have to work to be open to new life with our with our whole hearts. We talk about it always in terms of giving ourselves to each other and willingness to accept what God brings.
Really, if someone were to say that they cannot be open to life, they should abstain, even in the infertile times. Early in my parents' marriage, they suffered a miscarriage. In her mourning, my mother says that she was unable to be open to new life, and they abstained for a significant period of time. This was even though the miscarriage had rendered her infertile until she received a D&C over a month later.
I see NFP to avoid pregnancy as part of a way of acting on what you believe to be God's call to take care of something else before having another child. The other part is to take care of whatever is getting in the way. NFP gives us a way to say, "God, I think you are calling me to postpone having another child until we get this taken care of, but if you think we're ready to handle another child, go right ahead and bless us." Really, done right, NFP has to be about having and caring for the children God entrusts to our care, not about not having kids.
NFP isn't just about preventing pregnancy either. Here are some other elements that may be incorporated into NFP:
-Seeking pregnancy when God calls.
-Ecological breastfeeding to help ensure that the mother's body recovers between pregnancy, the baby gets enough breastmilk before it dries up in another pregnancy, and a whole host of other reasons.
-Medical care to heal the body and allow couples to conceive the way God intended.
-Better due date calculation. I conceived my daughter late in my cycle, and if I had gone by my LMP to calculate my due date, she would have been horribly "overdue," and I may have gone through a lot of interventions that I did not want in order to try to induce labor.
