![\"Jay](\"https://catholicstand.com/wp-content/uploads/Jay-Boyd-NFP-Book.png\")
This is the “Conclusion” of my book, Natural Family Planning: Trojan Horse in the Catholic Bedroom? The book is available on Amazon and Kindle.
Marriage is intended to be fruitful; God said so Himself! God\’s plan for the sanctification of the married couple includes their cooperation with God in procreating new souls destined for Heaven. NFP doesn\’t explicitly fly in the face of such an understanding, but it is dramatically not submissive to God. NFP is all about a degree of control that is objectionable in any traditional Catholic understanding of marriage or Catholic spirituality in general.
NFP promoters attempt to elevate non-abstinence (that is, the circumvention of the need to abstain from the marital embrace) to the level of a virtue, achieved by gaining knowledge of God\’s designs so as to frustrate them. In other words, NFP promoters see the marital act as having “unitive” value that trumps its procreative value; therefore, engaging in marital intimacy when there is no risk of pregnancy is considered good in and of itself.
But sex is not an end in itself. To long for sexual pleasure but seek to avoid its consequences is, objectively, concupiscence seeking a remedy. Certainly we would say this of an unmarried couple (it’s called “fornication”). The traditional understanding of marriage is threefold: 1) the procreation and education of children; 2) mutual care and support for the married couple in their journey to Heaven; and 3) a remedy for concupiscence. And once upon a time, people actually got married first and then realized those ends. Nowadays, people seek the “remedy for concupiscence” (i.e., sex) first, and only afterwards might consider the other two ends. In the past, some couples probably got married primarily as a remedy for concupiscence, knowing that indulging their sexual appetites might lead to pregnancy; today we have a Pill to take care of the anxiety about the possibility of pregnancy, and many consider that license to satisfy their sexual appetites outside of marriage.
Taking the traditional view of marriage, if a man and a woman long to engage in the marital act, but are not prepared to have children, they should postpone marriage until they are truly “open to life”. They should not be thinking of ways to have sex that allow them to avoid that “consequence.”
The same goes for a married couple, really. When a married couple thinks the time is not right for pregnancy, the first option is abstinence; but, if desire is too strong, then charity demands that they engage in the remedy for their concupiscence. This remedy may be NFP. NFP as a “remedy for concupiscence” sounds, to me, a lot more honest in its presentation than touting it as a “way of life” or a “virtue.” From a marketing standpoint, though, NFP as a “remedy for concupiscence” doesn’t sound nearly as appealing as “NFP as a way of life”, or “God’s plan for the family”.
It seems silly to claim that one is “open to children” when one is organizing one\’s life around having sex not likely to be fruitful! The NFP “way of life,” when not practiced to achieve pregnancy, is all about sterile sex – sex that is meant only to make the couple feel good, with no consequences attached to that pleasure. The “background music” of the NFP way of life is always about sexual intimacy: “when we can, when we should, when we can\’t, and when we shouldn\’t”.
Our culture has a lot to do with our understanding of human sexuality. In a recent article addressing this issue, an insightful author notes that “Teen Pregnancy is Not the Problem”. Instead, she says, the problem is how the world presents the topic of “sex”:
The world says sex is primarily for pleasure. That sex doesn’t have to be for unity or procreation. That everybody’s doing it. That there is something wrong with you if you aren’t.
…The world tells us to act on all our urges as soon as possible. To get what we want, when we want it, always. To control our fertility instead of ourselves if we aren’t prepared to become parents.
…It’s time to use our lives to tell the world sex is primarily for procreation and unity…
Couples marry today with certain expectations about both marriage and sex shaped by public media. Sex is supposed to be “good” with a “good partner” and “personally satisfying”; in other words, sex is “all about the couple” – a variation on the theme of “it’s all about me”. People enter marriage today with a culturally-conditioned expectation that “sex is like what I\’ve seen in the movies” – which is to say it looks really great, and fun, and exciting! The NFP ideology (and that is what it is) does little to teach the true meaning of marriage, sex, or chastity, but is an unwitting participant in the unchaste sexuality that is rampant in our culture. To teach engaged couples about “family planning” of any kind is conceding that “family planning” (a.k.a., birth control) is a presumed need and value in today\’s Catholic marriages.
Certainly, today, the Church is failing badly in this area. Part of the reason for that stems from the 1960’s Church taking seriously the warnings from secular “experts” that the world was becoming overpopulated. Birth control was cautiously embraced because Church leaders didn’t recognize the errors in the overpopulation argument. The apparent needs of the temporal world loomed larger than the spiritual needs of parents that are met through generous parenthood providentially orchestrated by God. It seems as though, for a brief moment, Church leaders wondered if God maybe needed a little help in controlling population: hence, the concept of “responsible” parenthood, and the subtle movement from condoning periodic abstinence in certain serious situations to the idea that couples should rely on their own consciences to determine when to conceive a child.
I predict that, in the future, the Church will clarify what it teaches today, dramatically redefine the “serious reasons” necessary for use of NFP, and encourage it as a “remedy for concupiscence” rather than a positive, virtuous practice. My prediction stems in part from my belief that what is being taught today, and the verbiage being used to teach it, is, for the most part, wrong – at least on the very liberal end of the NFP spectrum.
There’s another, more pragmatic reason for my prediction: far from becoming overpopulated, the world is now beginning to suffer from the effects of decades of population control. We need more babies. People are now coming to an understanding of some principles of the economics of population growth which were previously unknown, unexplored, or ignored. I’m not an expert in this area, but even in the secular media we are beginning to see a growing awareness and concern about the need for more young people. And so if the Church wants to continue to meet the needs of the “modern world”, She will have to acknowledge that birth control should never be touted as a Catholic principle, and that now more than ever Catholic couples should be open to life, open to “generous parenthood” that puts the procreative end of marriage in its rightful place of primacy.
In the end, I think that might be called “virtuous parenthood”.
© 2013. Jay Boyd. All Rights Reserved.
150 thoughts on “NFP: Trojan Horse in the Catholic Bedroom?”
“Despite all the clamoring and subtle distinctions; there is no denying that having sexual relations exclusively during the infertile times is sterile sex.”
At one time I would have agreed with you, but you misunderstand Church teaching.
The Church speaks Latin, not English. All we have is a translation. There are subtle differences between languages that can have major doctrinal implications.
When the Church speaks of “procreation”, she speaks of the ACT, not the RESULT. In the Latin sense of the word (procreation), a procreative act is one that follows the procreative process, whether or not a baby results. Sexual relations during the infertile times ARE procreative because they follow the procreative process. Whether a baby results or not is irrelevant. The Church teaches that the procreative process is sacred in marriage and that couples must respect it and not alter it.
In English, “procreation” focuses on the result, the baby. This is why English speakers can’t understand why infertile sex is procreative or why artificial reproduction is not. But this leads to ends-justifies-the-means thinking.
This is also why the Church does not impose an obligation on infertile couples to reproduce, nor does she annul marriages on grounds of infertility. (Ask Henry VIII about that one.) This is why elderly couples can procreate, even though reproduction is biologically impossible (Abraham-and-Sarah miracles notwithstanding) The Church does not ask couples beyond reproductive age to “accept children in the marriage”, yet the marriages are still valid.
In Casti Connubii, Pius XI tells couples that frustrating the marital act is evil. In Latin, the word translated as “frustrating” implies an alteration. NFP does not alter the marital act, therefore it is licit. There has been NO change on the licitness of NFP, ever since it was first theorized in the 1850s. The pre-Vatican II magisterium is the same as the post-Vatican II magisterium.
What has changed is a deeper understanding of the importance of the unitive aspect of marriage, but this is consistent with the development of doctrine. This in no way lessens the value of the procreative aspect of marriage.
The Church’s teaching can be summarized as follows:
1. The marital act is sacred, don’t mess with it.
2. The marital act is good, don’t avoid it without good reason.
3. Children are an important part of marriage, don’t avoid children without good reason.
There is no need to overthink this or to become scrupulus. The self-awareness, self-denial, and self-control required to avoid pregnancy with NFP are all virtues. It’s a sacrifice and it’s very hard to abstain very well for very long without serious reasons.
Or as one young Catholic woman put it, “If people are using NFP selfishly then they are pretty crappy at being selfish and we’ve got a lot of other things to worry about.”
There is such a danger in this approach, and as much as I do esteem Jay Boyd, I disagree with her here (as she knows from previous discussions).
I wrote about my incredible frustration with the “NFP-to-postpone-pregnancy-is-practically-if-not-tecnically-immoral” position, here:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2013/01/my-nfp-plea-stop-giving-warnings-and.html
Stop giving warnings, and rejoice!
YES. This. Agree 100%, and I think it is terribly sad that Catholic culture has adopted NFP as the norm. Thank you so much for this wise, wise article!
I still don’t see: “catholicstand” doesn’t make clear if our judgement concerning Freud should be a positive or a negative judgement, for Marsh Fightlin, https://catholicstand.com/the-problem-of-porn/ , it seemed to be positive.
Kevin, I completely agree & yes this does seem to be a terminology issue.
John,
I also agree with what you posted & yes, procreation is the primary end of marriage. And unitive the secondary end. However, the word she used was “trump” which implies a bit of defeating/conquering. The procreative and the unitive ends support and strengthen one another which is why I quoted the term “inseparable”.
This is not my fight, but it seems ascribing motives of concupiscence to the Sacrament of Matrimony is a little like saying a man desires Holy Orders because he lusts for power or the Daily Communicant’s truest desire is a spiritual pride that feeds his ego.
Those things MAY be so, but it’s a bit presumptuous to go there.
The more a married couple share that Sacrament the more likely they are to be the loving family we want them to be.
Good Catholics don’t discourage married couples from being together, but GREATLY encourage it (provided that are open to life and no Onan-ian sin creeps in). St. Paul and The Epistles are clear about submitting to and loving your spouse.
I had 4 great Uncles and Aunts. All of them married for 50 years+. All of them, very romantically, died within a month of their spouse passing.
My Aunt Anna, into her 70’s, and until she died, was always very spry and animated. My Uncle Julius, her husband, looked 20 years younger then he was, was always by his wife, very soft-spoken, but ALWAYS with a remarkable little wry smile like he was bursting with a secret he wouldn’t tell.
I think there’s some wisdom there to discern.
VIVA CHRISTO REY!!!
Thank you for being the voice of reason…. very good analogies too!
That boldface font is very bold. I didn’t mean to shout at anyone. I was just trying to highlight the crucial sentences.
🙂 I appreciate this note, text so often gets misread. It made me chuckle. This discussion has gotten so interesting because there are orthodox Catholics on both sides and there is pretty strong disagreement.
Anna said, “I’m pretty sure neither the unitive nor the procreative trumps each other. My understanding is it’s a both/and situation.”
Pope Pius XII stated in his “Address to Midwives” (This papal document was footnoted in “Gaudium et Spes” of Vatican II and in “Humanae Vitae” as the source of the Church’s approval of “periodic continence.”):
“Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.
It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.
Okay, 2nd paragraph: Um, I’m pretty sure neither the unitive nor the procreative trumps each other. My understanding is it’s a both/and situation. See Humanea Vitae ( http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html) which calls it an “inseparable connection”.
Humanea Vitea also addresses why sexual union in the case of infertile couples or couples past child bearing age is a good. So I’m pretty sure her last sentence is wrong.
Marital sex is good, holy and a sacrament with a small s, and my husband & I passionately plan to take full advantage of this grace filled gift during both fertile & infertile times. And I’m pretty sure engaging in the marital act during an infertile phase is not frustrating God because He design there to be infertile times. Whereas, engaging in the marital act during a fertile phase & preventing conception is frustrating the natural end. That is why it is called contraception.
And the martial act is so holy that it can be used as an example to explain the Eucharist, as can breastfeeding btw 🙂
At this point, I’m kinda getting a sense that she is still struggling with the world’s twisted view of sex & children & is trying to fix it by focusing only on the good of the children. I can understand this because I remember when my first child was born thinking “oh, so this is what sex is for”. But I only thought this because my husband and I were still so entrenched in sinful sexual habits that our unions were not reflecting what God intended. Thankfully He wasn’t done transforming our minds, hearts & marital unions. More later 🙂
Anna,
The primary ends of marriage are indeed procreation. Marriage was instituted by God because it is the institution which is best suitable towards children.
Yet these ends are strengthened by the unitive aspects of marriage, mutual help, the fostering of love, and the dying to self involved in the quieting of concupiscence. The marital embrace is probably the strongest sign (and driver) of this unitive love. Pius XI teaches that as long as one does not deliberately deprive the marital act of its natural power, Catholics can and should use the marital embrace to strengthen these unitive aspects, since these lead to stronger families.
I think you’d agree with that. Think honestly it’s a bit of a terminology issue. Sadly, Dr. Boyd and others look at some of these traditional terms, and divorce them from any traditional meaning, to come up with their own warped ideas.
First thing: NFP is not submissive to God?!! Whoa? Wait a minute? If every single month, before every single marital act, my husband & I take our fertility and our sexuality and place it before God and say okay what do You have planned for us right now? How is that not being submissive to God? In my experience, the power of my fertility and my desire for sexual expression with my husband has led to a much deeper, more frequent prayer life. Yes, NFP can be used in a way that is not submissive to God. But there is nothing in the nature of NFP that makes it so. More later 🙂
Thomas, If one understands what is meant by “rendering the marriage debt” then one sees that Stacy’s interpretation is the correct one. See Pius XI’s Casti Conubii, paragraph 59. Also look at John hardon’s “Moral Theology”, Chapter VII (On contraception) which is available online.
I’m familiar with athletes. At high levels, women athletes often lose their menses for months at a time. Why? One can imagine the body flashes back to a time where a woman is running from some animal, and now cares little for the present goals of the marathon, gymnastics event, etc..We know stress experienced in war zones, natural disasters, grave illness, or traumatic injury can play havoc with a woman’s cycle. NFP research has shown nursing mothers are far less likely to conceive.
The point is that God builds into a woman reactions to external stimuli that have nothing to do with sexual desire or personal sin. We can’t really turn a blind eye to that information if we are to help families be as happy as possible. The alternative seems to start attaching scarlet “A”‘s to people’s motives. Rash judgment helps no-one.
Honest research is never Freud or Kinsey, but is the work of science working WITH the heart of The Church. We should be frank about couples being extremely happy with their love life. In fact, we should see it as right and honor to facilitate that Holy Sacrament like any other.
I prefer the extraordinary form of The Mass because of the reverence (“smells and bells”) it gives The Most Blessed Sacrament and The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass. We should look to elevate the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony in the same way.
Some Traditional folks want to consign the Sacrament of Matrimony to some lesser status because of the fear that people never can be taught a mature way of viewing the Marital Act. It’s as if the adolescent graffiti of bathroom stalls will forever be our guiding principles.
Some see NFP as “Catholic” birth control (sic).
Neither is true and holding either view is dangerous.
We know not if the marital embrace is a truly loving or lustful one, that is a prerogative of The Most High, but I think we ought, in Charity, to assume the former.
One can also make the argument that the unprecedented cultural sewer we find everywhere today, and even, regrettably, in some parts of The Church, is a far more dangerous jungle than the milieu primitive man ever faced.
At least the predators then only wanted to devour your body, unlike the infernal beasts of today, who very much desire your soul.
VIVA CHRISTO REY!!!
The discussion about St. Aquinas needs some clarification, I think.
It is true, St. Thomas says that engaging in the marital act for pleasure only “is one of the daily sins, for which we say the ‘Our Father’. Now these are not mortal sins.” That is, he counts it as a venial sin.” (As Jay pointed out.)
Text here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5049.htm (Art. 5 and 6)
He was explaining that if a man (or woman) engages in sex for pleasure selfishly then it is a venial sin.
In other words, using your spouse for your own pleasure is wrong.
Nothing hard to understand about that.
However, prior to that St. Thomas addressed both spouses engaging in sexual pleasure.
By “pay the debt” St. Thomas means giving to each other as married couples are obligated to do. (He discusses this in Q. 64, similar to the debt a slave owes his master. Married couples belong to each other and owe each other the giving of the self. He calls this a marital “good”.)
If the spouses engage in the marital act for the sake of each other, it is not sinful.
Thoughts?
Sounds like sex is a venial sin unless done for children or out of obligation in the original. But i hope your interpretation is correct.
I also think it’s time to challenge certain individuals:
Given the reality of the effects of sin in our lives and that we seldom ever do this act completely detached from all sin and its consequences, how can we possibly receive Christ in the blessed sacrament, since your sinful inclinations will inevitably make communion less effective than it should be? Given your view on NFP, how can one ansdwer this question and not be a Jansenist? There’s a direct connection. Jansenists advised against receiving communion frequently because our attachment to sin would lead to the chance of abusing communion. This was condemned as heretical, and a thoroughly protestants understanding of original sin and concuspience.
So how does Dr. Boyd thread the needle here?
And, with regard to concipiscence, I thought it was an effect of Original Sin such that we have a general weakening of our will with regard to temptation, particularly sexual temptation. However, I have never understood it as sin itself, and certainly not as enjoying sexual pleasure from licit sexual activity.
My turn to respond to various 🙂
– Can anyone show me where in church teaching, church documents, theological books, pre or post vatican II, where there is a distinction between “trusting in God” and “all NFP?”
– The church has never taught that enjoying sex is sinful. Nor do they teach the absurd idea that there’s nothing different between fornication and marital conjugal union except for procreation. Pius XII was crystal clear, provided the primary ends of the marital embrace are not deprived of their procreative power by an external action, couples are free to make use of the other ends of conjugal union, including how it strengthens the marital bond, and causes the power of concupisence over married couples to lessen. (Potentially) So the popes after Vatican II haven’t “developed” this doctrine, but simply applied it using a different philosophical approach which teaches the same thing.
As far as Dr. Boyd, I’m not disagreeing with those saints. I’m saying that thanks to some woefully wrongheaded assumptions, you read your erroneous views into perfectly orthodox saints. (Your downright Jansenistic interpretation of Aquinas comes to mind.) It is why I demand you prove that other people interpret those sources the same way you do, those with the competence to teach on these things. You could still be right when they are wrong, but they see something completely different in these remarks, and unlike you or me, they have actual copmetence to decide these matters.
(There are so many replies to replies up above that I am posting this at the end of the thread.)
Enness said, “John Galvin wrote: “Isn’t the decision made on the day the man and woman marry, and from then on they leave to God the question of the blessings He decides to send them?”
God didn’t make us omniscient, but he didn’t make us complete fools either. What good is prudence, then?”
The question “What good is prudence?” is a good question that deserves an answer. St. Francis of Assisi and St. Louis de Montfort point out the fact that when the word “prudence” is used by worldly people, it is simply a euphemism for worldliness. In that sense it means finding ways to avoid the onerous burdens of religion while still maintaining a facade of holiness.
But the true virtue of prudence means finding the best way to heaven. You can imagine yourself as a pilgrim walking a pilgrimage along a road that leads to heaven, but there are many dangers along the way, and many places where you can take a wrong turn. Prudence is the virtue that keeps you on the “straight and narrow” road to heaven by remembering past pitfalls that led to disaster and foreseeing false turns up ahead that will lead you off the road to heaven.
In the context of the question being discussed here, the pilgrim is at a crossroads and the one fork is marked “Reliance on divine providence” and the other fork is marked “Natural family planning.” Prudence helps you to distinguish the one which leads to heaven from the one which leads to a dead end.
Nice comments, Tabitha.
To clarify my last questions, I know that some people held the view that sexual pleasure pursued for it’s own sake, even between husband and wife, was sinful. But is it true that that opinion was dogmatic teaching? That is my question. And if it was not dogmatic, then shouldn’t the recent Popes’ teaching be seen as a legitimate devlopment of doctrine?
No, it is not dogma, it’s opinion. I don’t even think it’s valid opinion. The Bible speaks rather frankly of sexual pleasure in marriage as a gift from God. (Genesis 2:23-24, Proverbs 5:18-19, Songs 1:2-4)
If the marriage is ordered toward its primary purpose (the generation and bringing up of offspring) then mutual sexual pleasure is not sinful.
The debate here is about what “ordered toward” means. Is it okay to avoid conception for a time? When? Under what circumstances? Is it okay to enjoy sex if you are trying to avoid conception for a time, but still are open to life in general? Or should you abstain completely and not use NFP to only have sex during infertile periods? Or should you never avoid conception at all? The debate about “serious reasons” etc.
Wow… where do you all live? We would be so thrilled if more people here were even open to the idea of NFP instead of all sorts of other things. Not many couples here even consider NFP.
NFP teaches those, not open to life, to be open to life. NFP helps women to really understand their bodies in a healthy way. NFP helps couples to have children when they are having problems in that area. NFP guides couples how to avoid pregnancy when it is really needed. NFP teaches self control and self mastery. It promotes fidelity and healthy families. It helps women like me to be diagnosed with feminine diseases. It helps women like me be treated with natural hormones properly when the mainstream doctors don’t even try.
Check out the Pope Paul IV Institute and Dr. Hilgers work. Even across the country, he was able to properly diagnose me and recommend treatment when all other doctors here failed. He does amazing work and so does the Institute. They train doctors to have live-giving practices and tools to really help women. They help so many women with postpartum depression. It’s endless…
http://www.popepaulvi.com/
http://www.drhilgers.com/
The Catholic Church is the one who is doing on the edge medicine for women in this area and have helped me to no end. Thank you Jesus!
If you reply to my post, I’m sorry I do not have time to reply. Busy with my family!
Interesting questions that this has brought up. Has the Church really taughtt for 1963 years that if a married couple pursued sex with each other simply for sexual pleasure without contracepting that it is a venial sin? Is JPII’s TOB a development of doctrine?
FYI for those interested, Fr. Hardon’s work Moral Theology devotes an entire chapter to contraception, the marital embace, natural family planning, etc.
“http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Moral_Theology/Moral_Theology_007.htm”
I highly suggest “Periodic Continence” and “Specialized Problems” for this discussion.
There are really two strains going on here. The battle is between Traditional Sexual Mores vs. the TOB (Theology of The Body)/NFP crowd. The former has 1,963 years of the Catholic Faith to draw from while the latter has the imposing specter of JP 2 to use as a hammer against all foes.
I think everything beautiful in The Church comes from Tradition, but looking at sexuality as a terrible evil we have to endure, so new souls can be brought into the world, is misguided. Puritanism is really the seed of all pornography and debauchery.
I love the idea of frank conversation between couples, before marriage, to manage most powerful flames, so wings are not singed, by a fire that both gives life but destroys many souls. Yet, the phenomenolgy that JP 2 drew from in his TOB discourse also allowed for him to believe kissing the Koran, having shamans dancing in the sanctuary at Assisi (and a Buddha placed on the Tabernacle), and to entertain topless liturgical dancers while on a papal trip to Africa was also a work of “the spirit.” (I’ll leave it to your imaginations as to what sort of spirit might have been in play, there..)
What all this points to is a failure on the part of the Church to deal with this problem with all the resources it has. Abortion, sodomy, the annulment industry (90% of Annulments happen in the U.S. mainly due to the ability to pay the $300-$600 “clerical fee”), and every stripe of every sort of the colossal failure that is any part of the clerical crisis stems from misunderstandings as to the proper, ordered role of men, women, and children in society.
If the pastoral council of V-2 was even true to it’s stated goal of “Ecumenism” that only begins and ends with the family. I share nothing in common with Muslims, Hindu’s, etc..but I do want the children they have to be loved, cherished, and nurtured in a society that recognizes the unique gift of every soul. I do not cherish pagan, heretical, or schismatic beliefs, but the soul that God made that, we pray, only temporarily hold these beliefs, yes, I love that soul, for it bears the fingerprints of God.
Supporting the family, the first Church God created (Adam & Eve), should be the continual and sole work of the Pope and parishes worldwide. There would be no material poverty in the world today if the world’s elite did not conspire to starve bodies. Yet, there seems nowhere for the spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically starved to be fed in even the most “Catholic” places on earth.
Let’s not feel good about ourselves because we put a wig on a cancer patient, but let’s fight and prevent the disease.
VIVA CHRISTO REY!!!
errr…. I’m a traditionalist, I uphold traditional sexual mores, and I fully support the teachings of Blessed John Paul’s Wednesday audiences in his Catechesis on Human Love, or “Man and Woman He Created Them.”
That is bordering on presumption if you think God doesn’t expect you to use your brain as well as your genitals!
I guess I wonder how Dr. Boyd reconciles her statements on “sex for pleasure” with what the servant of God John Hardon S.J. states when writing in matters of….. MORAL THEOLOGY:
“Husband and wife are allowed everything that is necessary or useful or pleasing regarding intercourse, even for experiencing fully the pleasure attached to it, and then neither party can sin in looking at, touching or acting in any other way towards his own or his spouse’s body. Therefore no restriction is placed on them in showing to each other mutual love, so that they cannot sin either by look or touch or any other manifestation of love, no matter how long they continue, so long as they do not neglect other duties of greater moment. They may also speak and think about and desire those things between themselves, with only the common sense proviso of not involving a third party in this communication.
In all their marital relations they should be led more by the desire of pleasing the other than by the fear of sinning. They will act in a way more pleasing to God if they anticipate the desires of their spouse, rather than await a request. At the same time, true love also avoids demanding what the other would find inconvenient.
These rights and duties remain unchanged during their whole life, even when they cannot have children. No mention of normal conjugal relations should be made in confession, otherwise the confessor may suspect that something sinful has been committed, whereas coition and all its accompaniments are not only not sinful but virtuous and sanctifying to husband and wife.”
I think that’s pretty ironclad. I think everyone is still waiting on someone qualified who interprets Aquinas as Dr. Boyd and her supporters do.
It’s not that hard, really. Just get married, love each other, and do what comes naturally. God has a plan, and it really is okay to just go with it. It’s called Abandonment to Divine Providence. Highly recommended by many saints(though it is quite likely that Kevin Tierney will say that those saints don’t know what they’re talking about because they are not moral theologians of his level of expertise).
Just sayin’. 😉
So we’re screwed (pun not intended) if having sex when infertile, but can’t be permitted an educated guess as to when that occurs because we will inevitably abuse it? What the hell, man?
I am glad to know that the Church does not expect every single act to produce a baby, or I’d be beside myself with confusion right now.
I can’t believe this discussion is still going on! I just have to say that if we read and analyzed all of the encyclicals, dogmas and writings of the early Church fathers and past popes, we would never have time to procreate at all. I think Dr. Boyd’s suggestion (based on all of these readings) that a married couple should only intimately express their love when they are willing to accept a baby and abstain all other times, is overly scrupulous and extremely misguided. I can’t imagine any emotional or spiritual benefit to approaching such a beautiful aspect of married life with reservations that the act may be sinful. NFP has the endorsement of Blessed John Paul II and that’s good enough for me. The expression of married love is meant to be joyfully celebrated not distorted to be viewed as some kind of obligation or burden. I can’t imagine that a loving God would design it to be so.
Amen, Mary Ann!