A three-part question about NFP

[Em_in_FL]

And to make sure that there’s no egg waiting when the sperm gets there … Which prevents any possible union

Avoiding sex altogether is different than having sex and altering the act.

Editing to expand on this since I don’t think I properly addressed your comment…
When a couple purposefully decides to have sex at an infertile time during the cycle - they aren’t DOING anything to alter the natural design that God created. It’s God’s own design that has a women go through these cycles of fertility/infertility. There is no teaching that a couple HAS to ONLY have sex during the fertile phases - which goes along with the logic that it’s not about a NEED to have children.
It’s just about HOW the act is performed.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And to make sure that there’s no egg waiting when the sperm gets there … Which prevents any possible union

My wife ovulated on the 5th day after we made love, and we conceived a beautiful baby boy. (Sperm isn’t supposed to live that long). There was no egg there, and we were avoiding, but the egg eventually showed up, and new life happened. And we were open to this life. Our intention in making love was not to achieve pleasure and avoid new life. It was to bond as a couple in a life-giving way, even if we didn’t particularly want another child at the moment.

Don’t you see how we were placing ourselves at the mercy of God much more than if we had been using contraception, and accidentally conceived?!?

Even if you can’t logically explain the distinction, isn’t there obviously a real distinction here?

I’m really curious about your answer.

 

[RoseMary131]

And to make sure that there’s no egg waiting when the sperm gets there … Which prevents any possible union

Charting does not prevent the union of sperm and egg.

Charting allows the couple to know when they are a fertile couple and when they are not a fertile couple. Understanding the body is not sinful.

Being Open to Life is a key part. When the couple is engaging in sexual love during their infertile time, they are doing nothing to not Be Open to Life. They are saying, "God, if You see we are fertile and we see we are not while we are engaging in our marital love, we accept Your gift of new Life.

Sorry, I did an edit to my message with the last paragraph in red. In the time from my edit you had replied to my original post. I should have simply added another post. Sorry about that.

The couple having sexual intercourse when their chart says they most likely will not conceive CAN still be open to New Life. They can still be saying, "God if you see that we should conceive today, we are open to New Life. We leave this act of love in Your Hands.

Being Open to Life is a key part. When the couple is engaging in sexual love during their infertile time, they are doing nothing to not Be Open to Life. They are saying, "God, if You see we are fertile and we see we are not while we are engaging in our marital love, we accept Your gift of new Life.

God designed the woman’s body not to be fertile every day. God designed the healthy man’s body to be fertile every day.

The Church does not teach that couples can only have sexual love if both spouses are fertile.

The couple is basically saying: We accept any child you give to us through every act of marital love.

Remember when trying to understand God’s teaching to always place your search of knowledge and understanding under Prayer. You may already be doing so. When we have trouble understanding Church teaching, sometimes we have a easier time when we cover our search with Prayer.

 

[1ke]

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.
  The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

 

[RoseMary131]

1. It strikes me that NFP is inherently biased against women. To wit, women are most likely to want/enjoy sex at exactly the time of the month when NFP requires them to abstain, while men don’t have that same cyclical sex drive issue. Also, in humane vitae (sp?) the pope said he was worried that the use of contraception would cause men to see their partners as just objects of gratification – completely ignoring the fact that women might be happy to get a little gratification too.

Men KNOW when their spouse is in a fertile state. If you ask a man, he might say he does not know. However, he really does know and he will feel this awareness even if he is not mentally aware what and why he is feeling this.

So, while the man’s own sex drive does not run on hormonal cycles - his body picks up on the hormonal cycle of his spouse and his sex drive will increase based on her hormones.

During the woman’s fertile time, both the husband and wife have an increase desire for sexual love. Both the man and woman might be happy to celebrate this increase desire for each other. The couple together decide if they want to celebrate this increase desire at this time.

 

[Kelfa28]

Not true. Read the stats from science journals / NIH, not the church

Except that many secular physicians and OB-GYNs are promoting the use of NFP, they call it Fertility Awareness Method (FAM), to their secular patients as a highly effective and natural way to avoid pregnancy.

That was how I discovered NFP and began using it way before I became Catholic. I had no idea the Church considered it the only acceptable form for spacing children. Their reasoning makes perfect sense.

Even the secular method highly suggest abstaining during the fertile period as opposed to using condoms since…well, if it’s going to fail, it’s going to fail and your chances of getting pregnant are much higher then a couple using condoms typically.

A lot of women can’t stand the pill or other synthetic medications to avoid pregnancy and men hate condoms. Those are facts. Think of it as a “green” movement…kind of like going vegan.

 

[Rico_S]

My wife ovulated on the 5th day after we made love, and we conceived a beautiful baby boy. (Sperm isn’t supposed to live that long). There was no egg there, and we were avoiding, but the egg eventually showed up, and new life happened. And we were open to this life. Our intention in making love was not to achieve pleasure and avoid new life. It was to bond as a couple in a life-giving way, even if we didn’t particularly want another child at the moment.

Don’t you see how we were placing ourselves at the mercy of God much more than if we had been using contraception, and accidentally conceived?!?

Even if you can’t logically explain the distinction, isn’t there obviously a real distinction here?

I’m really curious about your answer.

I am pretty sure your take here is just not accurate and will only serve to confuse, imo. It is perfectly morally acceptable to practice NFP, actually have sex while desperately not wanting to get pregnant. In other words it is morally permissible to enjoy sex while trying to avoid the consequence–pregnancy.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to saying that a couples’ “openness to life” is what defines the sinfulness of contraception, which it is not. It is the alteration of the act itself that is sinful…not the idea being open to accepting a new life if it is created.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am pretty sure your take here is just not accurate and will only serve to confuse, imo. It is perfectly morally acceptable to practice NFP, actually have sex while desperately not wanting to get pregnant. In other words it is morally permissible to enjoy sex while trying to avoid the consequence–pregnancy.

In my understanding, this would only be permissible when there are very serious moral reasons to avoid conception. “I don’t want another child” would not cut it.

 

[Kelfa28]

Men KNOW when their spouse is in a fertile state. If you ask a man, he might say he does not know. However, he really does know and he will feel this awareness even if he is not mentally aware what and why he is feeling this.

So, while the man’s own sex drive does not run on hormonal cycles - his body picks up on the hormonal cycle of his spouse and his sex drive will increase based on her hormones.

During the woman’s fertile time, both the husband and wife have an increase desire for sexual love. Both the man and woman might be happy to celebrate this increase desire for each other. The couple together decide if they want to celebrate this increase desire at this time.

Exactly. Men an easily tell when their spouse is in her fertile period. Her hormones are going crazy and a man is much more likely to want to make love to his wife during this period.

My husband and I have been using NFP for quite a while and he always seemed to be far more frisky and hands on when I was in my fertile phase.
It was almost alarming to him how our bodies are actually designed to work.

I was on the pill at one point in our relationship (not for very long though because I hated the pill so much) and neither of us were actually interested in each other.

In fact…studies have shown that people who have met each other while the women was on the pill have a hard time finding a natural chemistry and a natural attraction to each other when she gets off the pill.
It’s not too uncommon for this woman to simply not find her husband attractive anymore.

 

[RoseMary131]

Or put another way, contraceptive methods that don’t work aren’t really contraception.

If someone attempts to rob a lady of her money at gun point and she has no money - the intent was still the same to take away the lady’s money.

Legally - is the crime charge the same? Maybe not… robbery or attempted robbery.

Morally - is the sin still the same? An intent to attempt to take the lady’s money. I think the sin is still the same - a mortal sin.

Morally from a non-Christian stand point - the same - an unloving act.

 

[bzkoss236]

I am pretty sure your take here is just not accurate and will only serve to confuse, imo. It is perfectly morally acceptable to practice NFP, actually have sex while desperately not wanting to get pregnant. In other words it is morally permissible to enjoy sex while trying to avoid the consequence–pregnancy.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to saying that a couples’ “openness to life” is what defines the sinfulness of contraception, which it is not. It is the alteration of the act itself that is sinful…not the idea being open to accepting a new life if it is created.

I think he might be pointing out that wanting to use Contraception, we are saying “No, I know better than you” to God, but when using NFP, we say, “I don’t want a(nother) child right now, but if it is Your will, God, then I will accept Your will.”

 

[Rico_S]

In my understanding, this would only be permissible when there are very serious moral reasons to avoid conception. “I don’t want another child” would not cut it.

Serious…just…etc. Yes, the church teaches that couples must have just reasons in order to avoid. But the church does not teach that one must be “open to life” in order to engage in the marital embrace…or like you said earlier, "There is something blameworthy (according to the Church) in having sex, and seeking to avoid the consequences of sex. " This is wrong and will only lead people into confusion, imo.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am pretty sure your take here is just not accurate and will only serve to confuse, imo. It is perfectly morally acceptable to practice NFP, actually have sex while desperately not wanting to get pregnant. In other words it is morally permissible to enjoy sex while trying to avoid the consequence–pregnancy.

Second response, to be clear…

When you choose to have sex, how can this choice be an attempt to not have a child? There is a very clear way to not have a child – to not have sex. When you choose to have sex with no barriers and no contraceptives, you are *always *expressing an openness to the consequences of sex.

I think it’s impossible to “enjoy sex while trying to avoid the consequence”, when the sex is uncontraceptive, since you aren’t trying (in that action) to avoid the consequence. A week later, when it’s a peak time, THEN you are trying to avoid pregnancy, by not having sex. But you are perfectly free, morally, not to have sex.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Serious…just…etc. Yes, the church teaches that couples must have just reasons in order to avoid. But the church does not teach that one must be “open to life” in order to engage in the marital embrace…or like you said earlier, "There is something blameworthy (according to the Church) in having sex, and seeking to avoid the consequences of sex. " This is wrong and will only lead people into confusion, imo.

See above. I stand by the statement, and I think the Church does too. If you think it’s wrong, feel free to appeal to Church documents, so that I can be educated.

 

[IBombAtomically]

God gave us (women) naturally occurring infertile periods and fertile periods, and there is nothing wrong in abstaining from sex during a fertile period IF there is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. There’s a difference between introducing a foreign object or artificially altering or mutilating our body to interrupt the sex act (so we can just use each other for our own pleasure), and just not having sex when another pregnancy would be catastrophic.

Sex is a beautifully holy act where man, woman, and God are physically joined to create new life. Our culture forgot about this a long time ago.

God isn’t some foreign invader that just showed up one day and took the human race hostage… He is the one who lovingly created us! He knows exactly how we are, and He advised us over time how to act in ways that are in our best interest. As a society, we think our sexual urges supersede morality… that if we act on something because it “feels natural,” that somehow that’s going to work out better for us than God’s Will. Someone remind me again of the divorce rate among couples who use NFP… isn’t it 0.2% Since we glowingly accepted artificial contraception, have marriages been strengthened or weakened? Has the divorce rate increased or decreased? Have STD’s and abortions disappeared or skyrocketed? Is the Family Unit more stable or unstable than it was in the past?
Exactly.

 

[Rico_S]

Second response, to be clear…

When you choose to have sex, how can this choice be an attempt to not have a child?

Of course one does not attempt to not have a child by having sex…that is sort of silly. But one can morally engage in sex while trying to avoid having a child…while not being open to the consequence of sex.

When you choose to have sex with no barriers and no contraceptives, you are always expressing an openness to the consequences of sex.

There are people on this forum throughout the years who have very serious medical conditions where a pregnancy would bring about serious health concerns for baby and mother, and have practiced NFP successfully (I will assume super super conservative). There is simply no way you can construe that they are expressing an openness to the consequences of sex by practicing the most conservative form of NFP. It is quite the opposite.

If you are saying that by having sex the right way (ei no contraception) that the church teaches that the act retains its meaning; that the inseparable aspects of unitive and procreative remain…ok. Not going to argue with that. But that is not the same as saying, "There is something blameworthy (according to the Church) in having sex, and seeking to avoid the consequences of sex. "

I think it’s impossible to “enjoy sex while trying to avoid the consequence”, when the sex is uncontraceptive, since you aren’t trying (in that action) to avoid the consequence. A week later, when it’s a peak time, THEN you are trying to avoid pregnancy, by not having sex. But you are perfectly free, morally, not to have sex.

Yes, Yes, the “avoiding” part comes in the not having sex…got it. But that does not mean that a couple TTA with NFP eventually will have sex and when they do, they do so hoping to be free of the “natural consequence of sex”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There are people on this forum throughout the years who have very serious medical conditions where a pregnancy would bring about serious health concerns for baby and mother, and have practiced NFP successfully (I will assume super super conservative). There is simply no way you can construe that they are expressing an openness to the consequences of sex by practicing the most conservative form of NFP. It is quite the opposite.

The intention of these people, when they make love, is not to avoid the consequences. Rather, they place themselves fully at the mercy of God every time they make love. After all, charting can be off, and women can peak on the 4th or 5th day after their period in rare cases, or they could double peak, etc. They WANT to avoid the consequences, but that is not the same as intending to avoid the consequences. A desire is not an intention. The goal in making love is clearly not to avoid having a baby, since that goal is obviously not served by making love.

In other words, no one ever attempts to avoid pregnancy by having sex. The very notion is inconceivable. People do attempt to avoid pregnancy by taking birth control. People do attempt to avoid pregnancy by putting on a condom.

The reason I point this out is that the OP is obviously NOT trying to avoid the consequences of her actions. So even if that is sometimes permitted (perhaps because of double effect?), this is not her situation. She is trying to understand how NFP differs from birth control.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

The couple having sexual intercourse when their chart says they most likely will not conceive CAN still be open to New Life. They can still be saying, "God if you see that we should conceive today, we are open to New Life. We leave this act of love in Your Hands.

See that’s my point though. Why can’t you say the same thing while wearing a condom. There’s still the potential for pregnancy if that’s God’s will. And if someone earlier was right about NFP being more effective, then there is actually MORE potential for it than
If you abstain during that time altogether.

I mean w/ condoms you still have the problem of a barrier. But what about spermicide? Less effective and no more intrusive on the sex act than using lube would be

 

[bzkoss236]

See that’s my point though. Why can’t you say the same thing while wearing a condom. There’s still the potential for pregnancy if that’s God’s will. And if someone earlier was right about NFP being more effective, then there is actually MORE potential for it than
If you abstain during that time altogether.

I mean w/ condoms you still have the problem of a barrier. But what about spermicide? Less effective and no more intrusive on the sex act than using lube would be

Because you would still be acting outside the body’s natural means. Spermicide is the same as using a contraceptive pill to attempt to stop ovulation. You are using something outside the body’s natural facilities to achieve an desired end and thereby distorting the act itself from what God’s will is for the act.

 

[BioNerd]

God gave us (women) naturally occurring infertile periods and fertile periods, and there is nothing wrong in abstaining from sex during a fertile period IF there is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. .

Just to get a better understanding…does this mean that if we don’t have a “serious” reason to avoid having another child, we would be sinning if we DON’T have sex when we’re fertile? So we’re required to have another?