Steve,
    My wife asked me if I would respond to you so I will give it a shot.
First of all, realize that I do not have a full understanding of the
discussion on the list as I do not read as often or as diligently as Roz
does.

By way of clarification, my letter was originally posted on the men's list
in response to a claim by another person that using NFP was as sinful as ABC
because it could be used to achieve the same end as ABC and therefore was to
be totally rejected as the moral  equivalent of heresy. His post created
quite a firestorm of debate and my post was just a part of that debate. I
did not bother to restate points that other men had made in their posts
because it would have been redundant, but it makes my points less clear when
pulled out of the context of the discussion.

I think I understand some of the confusion that you feel when you said,
    " I guess I'm confused because it seems that some parties are saying the
end result of NFP shouldn't be the espoused end result.  Make sense?"

I'll try to fill in some of the gaps. If I am still not making sense or if
I'm answering the wrong question, let me know and I'll try to clarify my
reasoning.

As background, the Church teaches that the gift of sex between man
and woman, in it's fullness, consists of two parts, the unitive, (which
bonds
the man and woman spiritually and emotionally together) and the procreative,
(which bonds the man and the woman physically together as another body which
God can then ensoul as another person). In other words, it is a physical act
of two becoming one for a moment, that results in two becoming one for
eternity, and God is intimately involved in the act with us. This is why the
Church looks upon the sexual act as a holy and sacred action, and the
Sacrament of Matrimony is given to us by God to help strengthen and protect
these bonds brought about through the proper use of our sexual natures.

Now, what about NFP. It would seem then, that children are to be the only
reason to have sex then, doesn't it? It can seem that way, but God made a
woman to have a cycle of fertility. There are times when she can be
impregnated and times when she cannot. With NFP a couple decides to refrain
from having sex during the times when she may be fertile and having
intercourse during the times when she is less likely to be fertile. In other
words, regulated abstinence. Neither the wife's nor the husband's fertility
is interfered with in any way. They simply refrain from having relations.
This is the normal state of almost everyone in the world at almost every
time of almost every day. It is completely natural and it cannot be sinful
to refrain from having sex, it would just be ridiculous to consider it being
so. Now, if the couple decides to "take a chance" then they realize their
choice, and God will is no way blocked. He does not require us to have sex,
it is a gift we may choose to exercise or may not choose to.

ABC on the other hand, blocks fertility specifically for the purpose of
having sex without the "risk" of pregnancy. It is less birth control and
"family planning" and more birth prevention and "sex planning". From my
perspective,
the reason birth control and sterilization is practiced is to allow a person
to have as much sex as humanly possible with as little responsibility as
humanly possible, with as many people as humanly possible, for as long as
humanly possible. It is just the opposite of the self-control required to
practice NFP and either permanently (as in the case of sterilization) or
temporarily (as in the case of contraception) tells God in essence to "Butt
Out until we say so". This is why the Church says that contraception and
intentional sterilization are inherently disordered. It is wrong to accept a
gift and then reject the gift giver, and massively so if the gift giver is
also the Creator.

Now I realize that some people have the attitude that to restrict the size
of one's family is wrong even if using NFP and that is where my original
post was coming from. Each must couple must search their consciences when
considering their choices and they need to truly find out the reasons they
have for deciding to avoid a pregnancy or deciding to try for a baby. Each
must examine their own reasons to insure that they are not being merely
selfish in not being willing to give life to another person through God's
blessing. Marriage is meant to be a life of giving ones self to another
completely and receiving back in turn the other completely. What all love
really comes down to is, how much one is willing to make sacrifices for the
good of the one who is loved. Love sacrifices its self for others,
selfishness sacrifices others for itself.

This brings me to your last point concerning the man who, in a way, forces
his wife to have so many children that they are starting to enter the "grave
conditions". I do not know the full situation so I cannot comment directly
about them, but in general, there can be a situation where a man having
relations with his wife and having children can still be sinning against
God, but it is not so much that he is misusing sex as he is misusing the
Sacrament of Matrimony. He is taking from his wife at his convenience,
instead of receiving what she can freely give. In other words, he is
sacrificing her for his own reasons, and his children can be less gifts than
trophies.

I've often heard it said that love has to be give and take. I feel that it
would be better stated that love has to be giving and receiving, and
therefore it IS more blessed to give than to receive.

I hope this helps to clear some things up for you. If not or if some of what
I have written is still full of holes let me know and I will keep trying.

Your brother in Christ,
Tim Ohmes

Back to Idle Thoughts Are Often True