Thursday, March 10, 2011

Important follow-up to the Natural Family Planning post: "Isn't it the same as contraception?"

I can't believe I forgot to mention this in the Natural Family Planning post! There is one very common misunderstanding about NFP that comes in the form of a question like this:

"How is NFP different from contraception, since both of them are ways not to have a baby? I can't see a real difference, since the intention is the same: to prevent a pregnancy!"

The question assumes that avoiding pregnancy is inherently immoral according to the Catholic Church. But the Church does not teach this! In fact, it is not inherently immoral to avoid pregnancy.

The question is flawed because it forgets the distinction between the end (our intended goal) and the means (how we get to that goal).

For an act to be moral, both the end and the means must be moral.

The "end" in our particular question is "preventing pregnancy". That is the goal or intention, and it is not inherently evil. If serious reasons exist, a married couple is justified in postponing pregnancy, even indefinitely. So, in such a case, we've got a moral "end".

So far, so good!

But now what about the "means"?

Well, the means a couple uses to prevent pregnancy has to be moral, too. Like so many other things in life, we have a choice between moral and immoral ways to get to a good end. NFP is a moral means of preventing pregnancy, contraception is an immoral means of preventing pregnancy.

But why?

Well, because contraception fundamentally changes the very nature of sex. In some cases, the spouses' bodies themselves are altered through chemical or surgical means, and in other cases there is a literal, physical barrier put between husband and wife at the moment they are called to be united as "one flesh". Contraception subverts the inherent, purposeful connection between love and life (i.e., sex and procreation), and when those two dimensions of sex are artificially separated, the marital act itself becomes disordered. To deliberately sterilize the marital act is to strip it of its transcendence and meaning. Sex leaves the sacred and becomes common.

With NFP, by contrast, the spouses and the marital act remain untouched and unaltered. Husband and wife unite in love as they are designed, and fertility works within the rhythms that God (and Natural Law) intends. The integrity of the martial act is completely intact.

But wait! you might say. You are still manipulating the process by not having sex during times you might get pregnant! 

No, not manipulating. NFP users are working with the natural cycles of fertility and infertility that God Himself put in place. God could have chosen to make us fertile 100% of the time, but in fact He made us infertile the majority of the time. To prayerfully consider our situation and then avail ourselves of the naturally infertile times of a woman's cycle does not disrespect God's design or the Natural Law.

Remember, choosing to abstain from sex is not a sin. However, choosing to take the pleasure of sex while willfully disconnecting it from its full meaning is a sin.

This analogy may help:

Trixie and Pixie both want to lose weight. Losing weight is not inherently sinful, and can be a good goal.

Trixie's means to that end? She practices self-control and sacrifice by eating healthier meals and smaller portions, and even fasting for a time.

Pixie's means to that end? She eats all she wants, in any portion, heavy on the sweets and treats. Each time she is done indulging her palate, she retreats to the bathroom where she sticks her finger down her throat and vomits it all back up.

I hope we all can agree that Trixie's means of losing weight is moral and ordered, while Pixie's means of losing weight is immoral and disordered.

Bulimia contradicts the body's design by accepting the pleasure of eating, but willfully thwarting its life-giving purpose.

Contraception contradicts the body's design by accepting the pleasure of sex, but willfully thwarting its life-giving purpose.

Natural Family Planning is a good means to a good end, thus is ordered and moral.

Contraception? It's just sexual bulimia.



_

52 comments:

  1. EXCELLANT explanation!!! Good use of imagery!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Remember, choosing to abstain from sex is not a sin. However, choosing to take the pleasure of sex while willfully disconnecting it from its full meaning is a sin."

    That sums it up perfectly! And so does the last line. Leila, this is a great post for both issues I think. Makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Love this explanation. I am book-marking it!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. That is a great explanation and its hard to say at time to those holy catholic that are saying that NFP is a Catholic Contraception. Its funny how you said that about bulimia, The first time I hear of that way is from Fr. John on a talk he gave about sex to Ritter Students and at one point in his blogs he says: Contraception to NFP is as Bulimia is to fasting. Just as you put it. I will have to recall your statement here so that I can use it. Thank you. From a CCL couple in Delaware!

    http://on-this-rock.blogspot.com/2011/01/lets-talk-about-sex.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Leila, you are awesome! Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with what you're saying that for an act to be moral, both the ends and the means have to be moral. But I don't agree with this: "To deliberately sterilize the marital act is to strip it of its transcendence and meaning. Sex leaves the sacred and becomes common." Sex between a married couple is not any less meaningful if there is a barrier (whether physical or chemical) in place to prevent pregnancy. At least, in my opinion...but I know that Catholics think differently on this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cecilia (3-11-11, 7:36 AM) linked the On This Rock video about sex.

    IT. IS. AWESOME. I just watched it and (somewhat awkwardly) sent the link to my single BIL's. Fr. John is so right that this kind of thing is NOT heard in Church. And if we as Catholic adults are not hearing the message in Mass (or in the Bubble!), where are our public school children going to be getting this message? Weekly CCD? So, just once in a blue moon from a teacher that kids see just once a week?

    I'd encourage everyone reading this post to send Leila's link in an e-mail to Catholic parents, friends, and relatives, and also link Fr. John's homily. It's time that Catholic boys, especially, hear this, and that Catholic girls are held accountable as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mrs. Bunny, hello! Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I didn't mean to imply that contracepting couples do not have meaningful love. When I used contraception with my husband, we loved each other very much. However, I am speaking objectively. If we cut out (or change) the very meaning of sex, then the act is, objectively, less meaningful. It is not being lived to the fullness of which it was intended by God.

    I hope that makes sense.

    I've lived it both ways, and you really can't "see" it till you're on the other side, so to speak.

    I will also add that it's not just Catholics who believe this... There are more and more Protestants waking up to the truth about contraception, and going back to the traditional Christian understanding of sex. Remember, before 1930, all Christian churches were opposed to contraception, knowing that it would take the "sacred" out of the marital act.

    I am glad you are here and I hope you will keep commenting with your perspective! Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cecilia, thank you! I can't wait to watch the video! Ever since I heard the bulimia/contraception analogy years ago, it really stuck. It's an eye-opener!

    Sarah, I'm glad you are bookmarking it, and Lisa, passing it to friends. I consider this a "reference post" -- one that folks can refer to in a pinch when they are confronted with this common question.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great explanation, Leila!

    I'd like to add that the Church does teach that it's possible to misuse NFP. If couples are using it to avoid, they must have serious/just reasons do to so (such reasons should be prayerfully discerned with the aid of a faithful priest or spiritual director - but some examples are financial strain or health reasons). Using NFP with a contraceptive mentality (e.g., avoiding pregnancy so you can afford to buy a boat, or so you won't be pregnant during your trip to Europe) can be just as sinful as using contraception.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for bringing that point up, JoAnna! I knew that someone would, so I took it out of the body of the post.

    Yes, NFP can be used selfishly, it's true. It's one of those "prudential judgement" areas which can only be discerned by the couple, through prayerful discernment as you mentioned.

    Here's the beautiful thing about using NFP, though: Many couples start out using it strictly out of obedience to the Church, maybe having just converted, or just begun to understand the reasons why contraception is never allowed. They start with the feeling that they don't want any more children, and that they will try this "Catholic way" so that they are not in sin. They may be using it selfishly at that time. But the miraculous thing about making that step and following God's design is that the heart starts to change and open. The couple starts to be open to life whereas before they were just using NFP as a new, more natural type of "contraception". So, while NFP works on the physical, scientific level, it also (more importantly) works on the spiritual level. And then, life changes. We realize that sex is much bigger and better than what we had experienced or understood before.

    So, while anything (even a good thing) can be used or approached selfishly (i.e., sinfully), I would contend that using NFP (even if it starts out selfishly) is always a better moral choice than using contraception.

    Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was thinking about that too, JoAnna. It's not a significant point, but I think there's a better term than NFP because I actually think maybe it's not a great idea to think in terms of "family planning" at all with regard to children. First and foremost family planning means you are ready to be parents if and when you become them. Being open to life means that if God sent us a child tomorrow who needed a family, we'd be willing to be parents. And as many people know, you can't ultimately really "plan" pregnancy. It happens or it doesn't, even if you are trying to understand your body.

    I'm just rambling and thinking out loud. I do think the "family planning" part is misleading because of course, it sounds like contraception.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cecilia, wow!! I just watched the video you linked! It is amazing!!!!!! Thank you! I hope everyone gets a chance to hear it. I especially love the part where he says our generation didn't get this "guilt" from hearing it at mass, since none of us ever heard any homilies about sex/contraception/sin, etc.! So true...

    ReplyDelete
  14. "So, while anything (even a good thing) can be used or approached selfishly (i.e., sinfully), I would contend that using NFP (even if it starts out selfishly) is always a better moral choice than using contraception."

    Oh, I absolutely agree. It's similar to what Pope Bebedict XVI said in "Light of the World" - it's the beginning of a moral awakening, even if the action itself is not moral.

    Stacy, that's interesting, and I think it's because Planned Parenthood has marketed the "family planning = contraception" association. Maybe we should be promoting OGP - Open to God's Plan!

    ReplyDelete
  15. *Pope Benedict, that is.... stupid iPhone. :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. I always just tell people "If contraception and NFP are the same thing, and you currently are using contraception, then you'll have no problem switching to NFP (unless of course they aren't actually the same thing)"

    ReplyDelete
  17. JoAnna, you said It's similar to what Pope Benedict XVI said in "Light of the World" - it's the beginning of a moral awakening, even if the action itself is not moral.

    I just want to make sure we are saying the same thing.

    NFP is objectively a good thing, but can, like any good thing (even giving to the poor), be used with bad motives. But the "thing" remains good in its essence.

    Contraception, by contrast, is always objectively wrong.

    In other words, we can always know that condom use (even if it's the beginning of a moral awakening) is always disordered. By contrast, we can never know the heart/intent of a couple using NFP (or giving to the poor), so we assume good motive.

    I hope I'm making sense, as I am trying to put the thought out there but still get the kids out the door, ha!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Father Hollowell, I love that!

    And, I love that homily you gave. I posted it to my facebook. You are doing great work for the Kingdom!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Leila, yes, I'm just not nearly as good at phrasing it as you are. :)

    Fr. John - thank you for being a faithful priest!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have had "the NFP is the same thing as contraception" discussion, ironically, with more traditionalist Catholics/Pope Pius X Society members than I have with nominally Catholic or Protestant couples. Our good friends argued with my husband that we were no different than a contracepting couple when we were practicing NFP, so as not to get pregnant during his schooling and when we couldn't afford maternity insurance. Our friends claimed that NFP was no different than us using contraception and that we should be open to life at all times (essentially the "quiver full" mentality) and just trust that God will take care of us if a baby comes. We argued that we did trust God and of course would welcome a baby if God blessed us with one, but that we could still practice abstinence in accordance to God's plan. Our friends then argued that deliberately abstaining during fertile periods was wrong and that if we were going to abstain that we should abstain 100% of the time because NFP was playing God and deliberately avoiding pregnancy during certain times when a woman could get pregnant. Our friends didn't have an answer when we asked if a couple then should abstain when the woman was pregnant (since she obviously couldn't get pregnant again during that time) and if a couple should abstain if a woman has had a hysterectomy or if she has gone through menopause.
    Anyway, I think the fundamental difference between contraception and NFP can be summed up like this: A couple does NOT avoid pregnancy by having sex during the wife's infertile period. A woman cannot get pregnant when she is infertile. Abstaining from sex when the woman is fertile is not avoiding pregnancy either, one cannot get pregnant by NOT having sex during a woman's fertile time.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Adrienne -

    I've found this article helpful when talking with traditionalist or SSPX Catholics:

    Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy? by Father Brian W. Harrison

    ReplyDelete
  22. I saw Christopher West speak and put it this way (which I thought was brilliant):

    Question: "So, you're going to tell me that NFP is really different than just WAAAAAAITING for my wife to be infertile?"

    Answer: "So, you're going to tell me that killing Grandma is really different than just WAAAAAITING for her to die?"

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry that should have read "contraception" not NFP.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lol at "sexual bulemia" and your post tcie :)

    I struggle with what is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. Of course it would be difficult if I got pregnant right Now, but I know God would give me the grace to get through a tough pregnancy and caring for 3 kids. Plus who am I to deny my kids a sibling because it would be hard for me Right now?

    On the other hand, I want to make sure Leo gets breast milk for a year, and be at my best to care for hum during and after surgery....

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cecilia, are you in Indiana?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I LOVE the bulimia analogy. I have been decidedly against using contraception for months now because of Catholic teaching. But the bulimia analogy just made it CLICK for me.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Leila wrote" So, while anything (even a good thing) can be used or approached selfishly (i.e., sinfully), I would contend that using NFP (even if it starts out selfishly) is always a better moral choice than using contraception. Thoughts?"

    Agreed. Contraception is intrinsically evil,while NFP is "in conformity with the objective criteria of morality"* thus even using NFP with a contraceptive mindset while sinful is not gravely sinful. Using contraception is.

    What puzzles me are those who say that responsible parenthood means we MUST use NFP. Nowhere does the Church teach that and yet I have been told it several times.

    --------------
    *CCC "2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality."

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh and the bulimia analogy is spot on. This is what the Romans used to do in their "vomitoriums". I first heard this analogy many years ago from Steve Wood and it's still the one I think best describes the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Forgive me if this was already touched upon, I don't have time to read all the comments, but I have a little pet peeve to address. NFP does not equal avoid. Kimberly Hahn made the same "mistake" in her book Life Giving Love. The book is AMAZING, but my non charitable frustration (at an amazing person) led me to mark out every use of the word and write "avoid" about it. They are not interchangable. Some use NFP to avoid. Some use it to achieve. Some use it for both, depending on the month. NFP as a means to achieve is a huge part of NFP that is not nearly touched upon enough in general circles (when it is touched upon at all) and the reason I have 2 babies to hold. Sorry, like I said, just a pet peeve and not really aimed at anyone this time. Just clarifying. And probably preaching to the choir here. But maybe not...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Adrienne, wow, it is sad to me when some Catholics are "more Catholic" than the Pope. We either stand in obedience to the Church or not. And the Church says that NFP is licit. So, we listen to Mother Church, who not only accepts NFP as a good, but actively promotes it. Anyone who says otherwise is not speaking with the mind of the Church.

    And, MicheleQ also makes a good point: Whether or not to use NFP at all is a decision for the couple and God. Many couples do not want to use any charting or follow any signs, but would prefer to be open to the children God sends them. This is also very acceptable!

    All the other questions: "Do they use NFP with a contraceptive mindset?" "Do they have more children than they can care for?" are really none of our business. They are matters of prudential judgement and no one but the couple and God have any say in it (with advice, possible, from their priest, spiritual director, and/or doctor).

    TCIE, love it! Beth, my sentiments exactly (and Cecilia lives in Delaware and is a teaching couple in Nicole C's diocese!). Kristy, awesome!

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Beth,

    The whole thing o "serious reason" is so personal between a husband and wife. What might be a struggle for one isn't necessarily or another which is why it's so important to pray, pray and pray some more about it (which I am sure you are!). The reasons you gave seem very sound to me but I would say seek counsel o a good priest i you are uncertain. The Church teaches that caring for a child in need (which you seemed to indicate) is indeed a serious matter. Don't worry that you are depriving your other children of another sibling. There's no guarantee you'd get pregnant anyway --even if you have easily in the past. (trust me as a mom of 10 who thought fertility was a given, it isn't!) just submit it all to Our Lord and He will direct you. God's peace to you!

    ReplyDelete
  32. pardon the missing f's --my keyboard seems to be sticking!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wheelbarrow Rider, great point! I didn't address it in the body of the post, because I know that most of the readers who are most curious about NFP are those who want to know if it really does "work" to avoid pregnancy. So, I am trying to go with that view for now, to show that while it "does" what contraception "does", it's fundamentally different.

    Once people start using NFP, those skeptics usually start to fall in love with the idea of "achieving" a pregnancy.

    And of course, for those who have trouble achieving or are dealing with infertility, NFP can be a real blessing.

    So, you are right, and I'm glad you brought it up!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Just as a point of clarification, it is by definition impossible to use NFP with a "contraceptive mindset". If NFP is not contraception, it is impossible to use it with a contraceptive mindset. It is possible to use NFP selfishly or to not be generous enough, but that is never equivalent to using contraception.

    Other amazing bloggers have done great jobs writing posts about this, but because NFP never violates the sanctity of the marital act, the sin of contraception and the sin of selfishness are distinctly different. Just want to point that out.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I actually wrote about this here and posted an article discussing this issue:

    http://matchingmoonheads.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/just-cause/

    From the last paragraph:
    "If there is no act of intercourse between a potentially fertile heterosexual couple, there is no potential conception to act contrary toward. Those who choose not to have intercourse, that is, choose abstinence (as NFP practitioners do when they want to avoid pregnancy), cannot act contrary to any conceptive-type of act, since they are specifically avoiding such acts. Therefore, those who choose NFP wrongly, although they do wrong, they do not do the same thing as those who contracept. Strictly speaking, they do not, indeed cannot, have a “contraceptive intention,” although their frame of mind might be characterized by what John Paul II called a “contraceptive mentality” (by which I take him to mean, a mentality that sees the coming to be of new life as a threat, something rightly to take measures against)."

    ReplyDelete
  36. Great post and I love all the comments!! EXCELLENT points.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Matching Moonheads, thank you for that great clarification! It helps me find the right words!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank. You. MicheleQ! We have a 3 month. Old with a cleft palate, who will Have surgery at 15 months. Yeah I think We have a good reason to wait. But I also think maybe we should let God decide? We will definitely pray about it. Thank you again!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sexual bulimia! That's brilliant! I'll use that! (not the practice....just the analogy.)

    ReplyDelete
  40. This is fantastic, Leila! Thank you! You're so brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Just to add to wheelbarrel: The concept of "yes" to life, is part of God's plan for us as married people. That willing participation is to be sought and lived out. Everytime we participate in the (Yes) of God whether it actually produces life or not, we are happier and healthier people.

    ReplyDelete
  42. NFP is interesting to me and new to me. I am totally for it but I admit I have a hard time understanding it and explaining it to my husband (he's a new convert)because I have not understood it completely myself. There were a lot of "holes" in my defense in NFP as my husband was new to this and very skeptical. I'm going to read this post to him tonight. If I can't find the words, I'm glad somebody else can! :-)

    I have been in an interesting situation regarding NFP. Before, we would use it only for financial difficulty but mostly we were open for babies and it seemed I got pregnant every other year.

    Then a little over a year ago, I had just had a baby and nine days after having her, I had a coronary dissection which resulted in a major heart attack. I went into cardiac arrest and it took about 40 minutes to re-establish a heart beat. I was in a coma for about 5 days and when I woke up, I was told by 5 different doctors that in no way, under any circumstance, can I ever have more children.

    This was a totally different scenario for me and my husband--the lazy NFP-we'll-just-see-what-happens-couple. Now I was being told that I would be trading in my life if I ever got pregnant again. They are not so much worried about me having another coronary rupture (although none of them would guarantee that it wouldn't happen again) but they were more concerned about the strain it would put on my heart during the pregnancy.

    I've had good reason to listen to them. One, I died already once and I rather not do it again soon-at least until I know God truly is calling me, Two, my EF (ejection fraction--the amount of force that your heart is pumping blood out)is at 40% when it should be around 60% for a woman my age. (I'm 36.) Three, I struggle enough trying to keep up with the four children I already have, and not to sound like a wimp, I sometimes wonder if I will live to see them graduate.

    I talked to my parish priest about this and all he said was, "Isn't it sad that people think that becoming pregnant is a scary thing?" I'm not talking against him, as my whole medical situation is complicated and hard to explain. I'm not sure he really understood that I could and probably would die if I were to get pregnant again.

    When I tried to talk about this with other NFP couples, I got kind of ambushed with "advice" and too much information. I felt somewhat judged instead of being heard. They assumed that I was going to go to contraception. My point was only that I wasn't sure that we understood NFP enough to use it without putting my health at risk.

    That being said, we are using NFP to the best of our knowledge, though my husband is afraid to touch me more than once a month (which is ok with me, because I'm kind of tired anyway.) He is still very skeptical about NFP and so we use the Clear Blue Easy machine to avoid pregnancy.

    Secretly though, I always hope for a missed period. It's hard being told that I know longer can have children. I've always considered this time of my life as very special, and though I wasn't exactly one who kept the complaints to myself during pregnancy, I've always felt the honor to be given a child to parent.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Becky, I've read your story and it is astounding!! I am so excited to tell you that there is another woman in exactly your situation, regarding NFP and total avoidance. She "died" and had three heart attacks and arterial bleeding during her emergency C-section (when she was completely blue and coded, due to an amniotic embolism). She has been told to never, ever, ever had another child, and she is an NFP teacher (and in the video on my previous NFP post!). Please email me and I will put you in touch with her. You have a lot in common!!

    Thank you for your amazing, honest comment!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Leila, thanks for replying. Over and over again I hear "couples need serious reasons to practice NFP" and I think "no! you mean serious reasons to AVOID pregnancy". I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I know that most think NFP to avoid and nothing if you want to achieve, but that isn't always the case either. Timing is everything, even for couples that aren't sub fertile. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon 11:11 here. I always comment late because it takes me some time to mull these things over :)

    My issue with this explaination is that sex "just for pleasure" is wrong. I'm pregnant, so all of our sex these days is just for pleasure. When you have sex in your luteal phase it's just for pleasure.

    With the food analogy, then isn't eating chocolate cake immoral? It has no nutritional value, it's "just for pleasure".

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hi Anon 11:11,

    As Catholics, we don't think that pleasure is bad, nor do we think that pleasurable sex is bad. In fact, we love pleasurable sex! :) However, the problem comes when we try to separate the pleasurable aspects of sex from the procreative and unitive aspects, regardless of if a woman is in the fertile or infertile phase of her cycle.

    As Dr. Janet Smith says in "Contraception: Why Not?":

    "So, our society has this view that these three things – sex, babies, and bonding, are separate and the Church says, "No, they're together." Now some people want to say, "Well, no, no, no. You've left something out here. Clearly, sex is for pleasure. And those who are having sex, they're doing what sex is for; they're having pleasure." And I'll say, "No, no, no. You've missed the point." There are lots of things that have pleasure attached to them. Pleasure is not the purpose; pleasure is the motive; pleasure is the consequence; but it's not the purpose. As a matter of fact, God attached pleasure to the things that he really wants us to do, that are necessary for our survival and for our happiness. So, it's pleasurable to eat and it's pleasurable to drink and it's pleasurable to sleep and it's pleasurable to exercise, and it's pleasurable to have sexual intercourse. It's pleasurable. That's not the purpose. That's not the reason we eat though some of us do. That's not the reason we sleep though some of us do. That's not the real purpose for these acts. They're restorative in many ways. They're necessary for our survival. So, God attached pleasure to everything he wanted us to do for, not our salvation, so much, as just our well-being. But we have to do it at the right time, and the right place, and in the right manner, with the right person, etc., etc. – in the right way. Sure, eating is pleasurable, but there are limits to what you should be eating. Sexual intercourse is pleasurable, but there are limits to what you should be doing, and you have to seek that pleasure in accord with the nature and reality of what you're dealing with."

    To use your analogy, it's fine for us to eat chocolate cake, but we need to do so in moderation and in the proper context (e.g., eating one slice as a dessert after a nutritious meal). It would be the sin of gluttony to eat an entire chocolate cake in one sitting, or have nothing but chocolate cake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

    Does that help?

    ReplyDelete
  47. This is the best, most clear explanation I've ever come across. Thank you!!

    ReplyDelete
  48. LEILA
    PLEASE SEND ME THE LINK TO FR JOHN'S HOMILY. THANKS. VICTOR

    ReplyDelete
  49. Oh Sexual Bulimia. Love it. Excellent.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!