NFP PART II

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]. Similarly, if the couple knew that it was the woman's fertile period, but they had a legitimate reason to avoid pregnancy, they would therefore have a reason to abstain. And there is no sin in not having sex, in fact there are countless circumstances in which not having sex is the right thing to do. If for the good of the family the spouses ought to abstain a few days out of the month, then that is what they ought to do. Just as when the couple is on the bus, or one of the spouses is ill or something, they have a reason, or even a moral imperative to abstain while such circumstances exist.[/quote]

isn't that a contraceptive mentality? and if not what would be using NFP with a contraceptive mentality?

[Theoketos]

I would say that it is not a contraceptive mentality because the reasons that the couples are abstaining are legit. That is they are grave. L_D listed that the spouses might be sick. That would be a legit reason. L_D also supplied the example of being in public. Surely it would good to abstain there as well.

The Church's teaching is not that one must have as many babies as physically possible. It is ok to play tennis as couple when the wife is fertile. To be strictly a baby producing being would hinder the education and love of the previous childern and it would endanger the health of the wife at least physically. Also thrity childern in 25 years would not be good for the any one's mental health.

That being said, all childern are gifts and parents, by their very matrimonial vows, should be open to life. So being as open to life as moderately possible is a very good thing.

NFP allows the married folk to truly apperciate the sacred fertile space of the woman's cylce. Every time they consumate the act, they must be aware of the consequences and determine that they are truly ready and able to call into the world new souls. Moreover, the marrage act is so good that it must acted upon as often as possible. However, men and women are to be stewards of their fertility using it with right reason. That being said, men may not use their reason to destroy their fertility (Artifical Contraception)

SO NOW TO THE SECOND QUESTION

If a couple is using NFP without just or grave reasons that would be using it as contraception. I will give an extreme example of the following: Not having a kid this year so that the husband can a Dodge Viper and the woman a Yacht. That would not be just to the child.


Just so you know here are some just reasons to abstain:

Physical Health of the Mother
Proper or Healthy spacing of Childern
War
Lack of Money (probably should the last reason)
Mental Health of the Parents

The above list is of course not exhaustive.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 23 2005, 05:06 PM']isn't that a contraceptive mentality? and if not what would be using NFP with a contraceptive mentality?
[right][snapback]834985[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Perhaps again, the discussion on this thread may help clarify:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=44806"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=44806[/url]

The fundamental differences (as I understand it) between the contraceptive mentality and the licit practice of NFP, is openness to life.
Put another way, artificial contraception by nature seperates the unitive and procreative dimensions of the nuptial embrace, it is sterilized sex. NFP on the other hand, is not sterilized sex, but rather the absence of sex when this is morally demanded by circumstances which may exist.
I'll just quote myself from another thread:

[quote]The thing to remember is that intentionally separating the unitive and procreative dimensions is a moral evil. Contraceptive sex is analogous to sex in which the unitive dimension does not exist. It would be a perversion to have sex with someone outside the context of love and spousal union, only for the sake of some utilitarian intention to beget a child. Similarly the pursuit of the unitive without the procreative would be a perversion. In fact the true meaning of either dimension only exists so long as both dimensions coexist in their complimentarity. This does not mean that an infertile act of sex has less meaning than an act which results in conception. The meaning is more personalistic than that. What is required is openness to life, not necessarily a direct conscious intention to beget a child in a particular act. This openness is already implied in the wedding vows and the very nature of marriage, so as a Catholic contraceptive sex would devalue those vows in that this aspect of the wedding vows would become a lie. Contraception doesn't just distort an act of sex (since the language of body expresses total, life-giving love in the conjugal embrace, contraceptive sex is a lie told with the body since it contradicts part of the essential meaning of the act, namely the fruitfulness of sexual love; it is a partial, conditional gift of self, not a total, mutual gift of self.), it also distorts the meaning of the marriage, making it a kind of facade of conjugal unity. A marriage without openness to life is much like a homosexual union. It is a contradiction of the meaning and nature of marriage.

NFP is not a sterilized sex act explicitly closed to life (as is artificial contraception), it is rather the absence of a sex act when it wouldn't be prudent or moral because of possible circumstances which would make sexual activity irresponsible at that time. As I said before, the licit practice of NFP reverences sexual fecundity (fruitfulness) it does not attack it and distort the nature and meaning of human sexuality.

NFP has more in common with a scenario in which a couple ought to abstain because the wife just had an operation south of the border and the doctor said that sex would be unhealthy (not to mention painful and messy). Or even the case of a married couple being in a public place. They have a legitimate reason to abstain from sex given the circumstances. Similarly with NFP, if the couple has a serious reason why they should not have a child (perhaps a situation of grave poverty) and the woman was known to be fertile at that time, they ought to abstain from sex. If the woman is known to be infertile, why should they abstain? That's more the logic of NFP.

And the basic intention ought not be the rejection of the fecundity of sex, or the life-giving, fruitful dimension; this would rather be the unfortunate consequence of that grave circumstance which necessitates abstinence during the fertile time. Thus it is still possible to have sex whilst being open to life. Just as it is possible to abstain from sex but be open, or have a desire/intention to have sex, if only those grave circumstances weren't present which make it irresponsible, imprudent or possibly immoral.

The logic of artificial contraception on the other hand says that I want to have sex at any time, without openness to life, and without responsibility or respect for the nature and meaning of the act. It is an explicit rejection and distortion of the nature of sexuality.
Conugal love and union is something quite essential to the human person and human dignity. It is also essential with regard to the family and the responsibilities of having children. The family is essential to society. I would say that contraception is a poison which strikes at the heart of humanity. Read Humanae Vitae for more details.[/quote]

[quote]it's like if there was a scenario in which a couple shouldn't procreate (even though they're faithful to their wedding vows and thus open to life) so they must abstain forever.. This would be sad. But fortunately this would also be very silly since a woman is only ovulating for a small fraction of the month. Thus, when the woman isn't ovulating, the circumstances are changed and the imperative to abstain doesn't exist.
That's it in a nutshell.

Contraception basically imposes its own false definition of what marriage and sexuality means. It is in essence a lie. I know this point isn't necessarily easy to see since we're so used to the culture of contraception. But it does in fact threaten the heart of marriage and family, and thus society. This is why many wise people have noted the connection between contraception, abortion, the destruction of the family, sexual immorality, divorce, etc.. [/quote]

And Theoketos' point is a profound one:

[quote]With the proper practice of NFP (that is with proper intent) there is still a complete donation of self. With in contraception fertility is withheld in some way. The persons are no longer, in the latter example, are co-creators entering a sacred space, but a merely partners in an erotic experience. [/quote]