After all the NFP debates: is this what the Church teaches?

[svoboda]

1. The Catholic Church teaches that sex must be unitive and procreative at the same time.
2. Unitive means that it reaffirms the vows spouses made to each other, strengthens love and emotional bond, includes a “complete gift of self” (according to the Church, contraception interferes with this)
3. Procreative doesn’t mean open to pregnancy, but means pro-God’s creation in the sense that nothing is done to oppose creation (such as birth control would oppose creation by deliberately altering the cycles).

According to this each sexual act during which nothing is done to deliberately frustrate fertility (i.e. no contraceptive is used), is automatically unitive and procreative even if it is sex between pregnant couples for whom there is no openness to new life since they’re already pregnant.

---

If this is the teaching, then I think it is consistent. But the question is, why is it a sin to oppose natural cycles? Why would preventing the sperm from meeting the egg take away from the “complete gift of self”?

What if NFP cannot be effective for the couple for physical resaons they cannot change?

 

[stbruno]

ccli.org/ Here is a link to the couple to couple league. They will be more than glad to answer your questions directly. Pray on it.
If you have never researched more than the church tradition on natural family planning then you still have more homework to do.

And after you have done your homework, including taking the classes, you will be able practically to answer your own question.
Pray on it without ceasing.

 

[bear06]

1. The Catholic Church teaches that sex must be unitive and procreative at the same time.

Yes. To kill one is to kill the other. After that is done it is a deformed version of what it is supposed to be.

1. Unitive means that it reaffirms the vows spouses made to each other, strengthens love and emotional bond, includes a “complete gift of self” (according to the Church, contraception interferes with this)

I think the best explanation of unitive I’ve seen is unitive is
the mutual and total self-giving of spouses to each other’s salvation.

1. Procreative doesn’t mean open to pregnancy, but means pro-God’s creation in the sense that nothing is done to oppose creation (such as birth control would oppose creation by deliberately altering the cycles).

Well, I think it’s clearer to say that being procreative doesn’t mean that one has to be reproductive. You have it on the mark that being procreative means not doing anything to oppose God’s design for our bodies such as birth control.

According to this each sexual act during which nothing is done to deliberately frustrate fertility (i.e. no contraceptive is used), is automatically unitive and procreative even if it is sex between pregnant couples for whom there is no openness to new life since they’re already pregnant.

Well, I wouldn’t say it’s automatically unitive just to not try to alter fertility. Spousal rape wouldn’t fullfill the unitive aspect, therefor the procreative would also be missing.

---

If this is the teaching, then I think it is consistent.

But the question is, why is it a sin to oppose natural cycles?

Because it goes against God’s design.

Why would preventing the sperm from meeting the egg take away from the “complete gift of self”?

See above.

What if NFP cannot be effective for the couple for physical resaons they cannot change?

You’d have to give me some examples. Irregular cycles don’t have anything to do with NFP. It can be used with irregular cycles and can even be used when a mother is nursing and there are no cycles yet. If there were some reason that a woman should absolutely not become pregnant and for some reason she had no fertility signs (a case that is rare) then the best option would be total abstinence. If the situation was that serious, why would anyone want to risk their life or their spouses life. Using ABC would be pretty stupid considering it also has a failure rate.

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

See above.

You’d have to give me some examples. Irregular cycles don’t have anything to do with NFP. It can be used with irregular cycles and can even be used when a mother is nursing and there are no cycles yet. If there were some reason that a woman should absolutely not become pregnant and for some reason she had no fertility signs (a case that is rare) then the best option would be total abstinence. If the situation was that serious, why would anyone want to risk their life or their spouses life. Using ABC would be pretty stupid considering it also has a failure rate.

Example: an account of a person I read who for some medical reason could’nt make NFP work for them. They went to teachers, did everything by the book and had 5 kids in 8 years. Then they started using condoms.

What would you have had them do?

 

[Flopfoot]

I would have them do what everyone had to do before NFP was well developed / effective - either accept that they may get pregnant again, or else stop having sex (abstinence).

Is it really that hard to accept that the action of sex might have the consequence of pregnancy? Is it really that hard to accept that some must abstain from sex for good? Plenty of people abstain from it their whole lives, and I’m not just talking about priests. What about people who would like to raise a family but just can’t find a spouse? Then they are forced, against their will, to abstain from sex. Well, same goes for any married couples who can’t get NFP to work and can’t afford another child for whatever reason.

 

[bear06]

svoboda:

Example: an account of a person I read who for some medical reason could’nt make NFP work for them. They went to teachers, did everything by the book and had 5 kids in 8 years. Then they started using condoms.

What would you have had them do?

Actually, I’m pretty sure I remember the woman and I had a conversation with her offline although I don’t remember he saying anything about condoms. She wasn’t using a reliable method. I explained to her about Creighton and Billings. It appeared that she was using something similar to the rhythm method. If she’s around, maybe she’ll chime in. Maybe you could give me a link to that thread. I think she’s the one that mentioned abstaining until day 26 or 28 of the cycle which is not how NFP works.

So basically, I would have them examine the method they are using first and consult a good doctor who knows their stuff long before resorting to another failing method.