Another point of view on NFP Vs ABC

[JABA]

When I am talking about ABC, I am only talking about barrier methods, not chemical like the pill.

I don’t understand how people can believe that using NFP to avoid pregnancy is acceptable while ABC is not. Both methods are not procreative.

When using NFP or ABC to avoid pregnancy the goal is the same, which is to avoid pregnancy. Both are avoiding pregnancy, so both are not pro creative.

In ABC you use a barrier to avoid the chance of procreation, in NFP you are avoiding relations during times of fertility to avoid the chance of procreation. Both are not procreative. How is only having relations during infertile times, being procreative?.

The only time relations can be considered pro creative is when the goal of any relations is procreation and no intentional methods be it natural(NFP) or artificial(ABC) are used to lower or avoid the chance of procreation.

So any type of “intentional” activity be it natural(NFP) or artificial(ABC) that lowers the chance and avoids procreation in sexual relations is sinful.

Please discuss

 

[Corki]

So any type of “intentional” activity **that is introduced into the marriage act itself **be it natural(NFP) or artificial(ABC) that lowers the chance and avoids procreation in sexual relations is sinful.

Please discuss

The bolded makes the distinction. NFP does not introduce anything into the marriage act. ABC does.

PS How is this “anther point of view”? This is one of the most repeated discussions here on CAF.

 

[1ke]

When I am talking about ABC, I am only talking about barrier methods, not chemical like the pill.

I don’t understand how people can believe that using NFP to avoid pregnancy is acceptable while ABC is not. Both methods are not procreative.

Well, first your premise is incorrect.

When using NFP or ABC to avoid pregnancy the goal is the same, which is to avoid pregnancy.

And the Church does not teach that this goal is intrinsically immoral. Having the same end does not mean that each means of achieving the end are equivalent, morally.

The Church does not teach that spacing or avoiding a pregnancy for a time or indefinitely for a just reason is immoral. It teaches that contraception is an immoral means of doing so, while abstaining-- periodically or completely-- is a moral means of doing so.

In ABC you use a barrier to avoid the chance of procreation, in NFP you are avoiding relations during times of fertility to avoid the chance of procreation.

This is incorrect.

When using contraception you engage in sexual intercourse and take an action to alter its natural end.

When using NFP you abstain from sexual intercourse OR you engage in an unaltered act of sexual intercourse.

What the Church actually teaches is that each act of intercourse must be ordered to unity and procreation. This means each act of intercourse must be a completed, vaginal act that is unaltered.

NFP meets this moral criteria while contraception does not.

The only time relations can be considered pro creative is when the goal of any relations is procreation and no intentional methods be it natural(NFP) or artificial(ABC) are used to lower or avoid the chance of procreation.

This is not accurate, nor is it the Church’s teaching. The Church does not teach that we must purposely be trying to have a child in order to have intercourse. What it does teach is that each time a married couple has intercourse it must be unaltered in any way, and must be a completed act of coitus.

So any type of “intentional” activity be it natural(NFP) or artificial(ABC) that lowers the chance and avoids procreation in sexual relations is sinful.

You keep saying this, but it simply isn’t true.

 

[RedSoxWife]

It’s the difference between doing something and not doing something. It’s the difference between having sex and placing a barrier in the way to prevent pregnancy and not having sex at all.

Not having sex when your fertile isn’t a sin. Having sex and putting something up to block the act is. It’s really not all that complicated.

 

[kimmielittle]

Well, first your premise is incorrect.

And the Church does not teach that this goal is intrinsically immoral. Having the same end does not mean that each means of achieving the end are equivalent, morally.

The Church does not teach that spacing or avoiding a pregnancy for a time or indefinitely for a just reason is immoral. It teaches that contraception is an immoral means of doing so, while abstaining-- periodically or completely-- is a moral means of doing so.

This is incorrect.

When using contraception you engage in sexual intercourse and take an action to alter its natural end.

When using NFP you abstain from sexual intercourse OR you engage in an unaltered act of sexual intercourse.

What the Church actually teaches is that each act of intercourse must be ordered to unity and procreation. This means each act of intercourse must be a completed, vaginal act that is unaltered.

NFP meets this moral criteria while contraception does not.

This is not accurate, nor is it the Church’s teaching. The Church does not teach that we must purposely be trying to have a child in order to have intercourse. What it does teach is that each time a married couple has intercourse it must be unaltered in any way, and must be a completed act of coitus.

You keep saying this, but it simply isn’t true.

 

[105lynne]

It’s the difference between doing something and not doing something. It’s the difference between having sex and placing a barrier in the way to prevent pregnancy and not having sex at all.

Not having sex when your fertile isn’t a sin. Having sex and putting something up to block the act is. It’s really not all that complicated.

AMEN!! This subject is becoming as tiresome as the whole “worshipping Mary” thing. These premises aren’t that difficult to understand!

 

[mark_a]

Well, first your premise is incorrect.

And the Church does not teach that this goal is intrinsically immoral. Having the same end does not mean that each means of achieving the end are equivalent, morally.

The Church does not teach that spacing or avoiding a pregnancy for a time or indefinitely for a just reason is immoral. It teaches that contraception is an immoral means of doing so, while abstaining-- periodically or completely-- is a moral means of doing so.

This is incorrect.

When using contraception you engage in sexual intercourse and take an action to alter its natural end.

When using NFP you abstain from sexual intercourse OR you engage in an unaltered act of sexual intercourse.

What the Church actually teaches is that each act of intercourse must be ordered to unity and procreation. This means each act of intercourse must be a completed, vaginal act that is unaltered.

NFP meets this moral criteria while contraception does not.

This is not accurate, nor is it the Church’s teaching. The Church does not teach that we must purposely be trying to have a child in order to have intercourse. What it does teach is that each time a married couple has intercourse it must be unaltered in any way, and must be a completed act of coitus.

You keep saying this, but it simply isn’t true.

Double

 

[razredge]

When I am talking about ABC, I am only talking about barrier methods, not chemical like the pill.

I don’t understand how people can believe that using NFP to avoid pregnancy is acceptable while ABC is not. Both methods are not procreative.

When using NFP or ABC to avoid pregnancy the goal is the same, which is to avoid pregnancy. Both are avoiding pregnancy, so both are not pro creative.

In ABC you use a barrier to avoid the chance of procreation, in NFP you are avoiding relations during times of fertility to avoid the chance of procreation. Both are not procreative. How is only having relations during infertile times, being procreative?.

Simple, it’s not - the procreative & unitive argument is a flawed one

Basically what the Church does is definite ‘procreative’ so that NFP becomes the only licit option - it is not the usual definition of ‘procreative’, as you pointed out having relations when the woman is infertile is not ‘procreative’ by any normal definition of the term.

See this thread for a long discussion about NFP vs contraception
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=558236&page=14

 

[JABA]

The church specifically teaches that sex has to be procreative and unitive, no buts, or am I wrong. How is only having having sex intentionally when one is infertile to avoid preganancy being procreative?. It just does not make any sense, or has the churches teaching changed on this?. It’s like saying, you are being procreative(with plants), when you intentionally only plant a seed during the months when it will not germinate, so it will not grow a new plant.

"When using NFP or ABC to avoid pregnancy the goal is the same, which is to avoid pregnancy".

And the Church does not teach that this goal is intrinsically immoral. Having the same end does not mean that each means of achieving the end are equivalent, morally.

All you have said basically, is that the church does not believe that sex has to be procreative, and that using aritificial birth control(ABC) is wrong while using natural family planning to avoid pregancy is okay.

Natural family planning should be more appropriately called “natural birth control” or " natural contraception", and the talk about about sex only being acceptable if its procreative to be false.

 

[1ke]

The church specifically teaches that sex has to be procreative and unitive, no buts, or am I wrong.

You are wrong.

The Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be *ordered to *unity and procreation.

How is only having having sex intentionally when one is infertile to avoid preganancy being procreative?.

Each act of unaltered, completed intercourse between spouses is objectively ordered to procreation.

It just does not make any sense, or has the churches teaching changed on this?

No, the Church’s teaching has not changed.

All you have said basically, is that the church does not believe that sex has to be procreative, and that using aritificial birth control(ABC) is wrong while using natural family planning to avoid pregancy is okay.

No, that is not what I have said at all.

Natural family planning should be more appropriately called “natural birth control” or " natural contraception", and the talk about about sex only being acceptable if its procreative to be false.

So, do you believe it to be Church teaching that a couple past child bearing years may not have sex with each other?

 

[JABA]

You are wrong.

The Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be *ordered to *unity and procreation.

Each act of unaltered, completed intercourse between spouses is objectively ordered to procreation.

Please explain how intentionally only having intercourse when one is infertile is being procreative. This is a contradiction. The use of NFP in this case is to avoid pregnancy, just like with using ABC, this is not being procreative.

No, that is not what I have said at all.

Yes, you did. You have said that natural birth control to avoid pregnancy is okay, while using artificial birth control to avoid pregnancy is not. This is what you stated below.

Having the same end does not mean that each means of achieving the end are equivalent, morally.

The Church does not teach that spacing or avoiding a pregnancy for a time or indefinitely for a just reason is immoral. It teaches that contraception is an immoral means of doing so, while abstaining-- periodically or completely-- is a moral means of doing so.

So, do you believe it to be Church teaching that a couple past child bearing years may not have sex with each other?

No, they are not intentionally only having intercourse during times of infertility and avoiding procreation. Their ability of not being able to procreate is related to biological functions, not intent, either natural or artificial. In this case age is the cause of not being able to procreate. A person who uses natural and artificial birth control, can procreate, but avoids intentionally, therefore they are not being procreative. Age related and intent are two different things.

This all would make better sense if the church said that using natural birth control is okay, while artificial birth control is not, and that these rules have nothing to do with procreation, just with the methods used. In this case I would understand why using natural birth control is okay, as its natural, but artificial birth control is not as its artificial. The whole, “intercourse can only happen if its procreative” is a flawed argument.

 

[Muze]

Question:

Had Onan used NFP to avoid impregnating Tamar, would he still have been put to death?

 

[1ke]

Please explain how intentionally only having intercourse when one is infertile is being procreative. This is a contradiction.

It is not a contradiction.

The act is a completed act of intercourse. It is ordered to its natural end and it is not disrupted before, during, or after. Therefore, it is ordered in the way God designed it.

The use of NFP in this case is to avoid pregnancy,

Yes, of course. The Church does not teach it is wrong to space children for a time or indefinitely for a just reason in conformity with objective moral criteria.

just like with using ABC,

No, it is not “just like” using contraception. Contraception is intrinsically evil. When using contraception the sex act is altered, it is not completed and it is not ordered as God designed it.

this is not being procreative.

The Church doesn’t teach that each act of intercourse must result in procreation. It teaches that each act of intercourse must be ordered to procreation.

Yes, you did. You have said that natural birth control to avoid pregnancy is okay, while using artificial birth control to avoid pregnancy is not. This is what you stated below.

Periodic continence is indeed morally acceptable. And, contraception is indeed morally evil. That is true.

However I did not say that “the church does not believe that sex has to be procreative”. The Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be ordered to procreation.

No, they are not intentionally only having intercourse during times of infertility and avoiding procreation. Their ability of not being able to procreate is related to biological functions, not intent, either natural or artificial. In this case age is the cause of not being able to procreate.

If I have sex with my husband on a day when I am naturally infertile, my lack of ability to conceive is a natural biological function. God designed a woman’s cycle to be fertile only a few days and to be infertile most of the month. I can have sexual intercourse with my husband on any day of my choosing.

What I cannot do is alter the act. It must be a completed act.

A person who uses natural and artificial birth control, can procreate, but avoids intentionally, therefore they are not being procreative. Age related and intent are two different things.

You are not paying attention to the act itself. The act is what is either properly ordered or disordered.

You are focusing on their desire to space children, which is not immoral.

This all would make better sense if the church said that using natural birth control is okay, while artificial birth control is not, and that these rules have nothing to do with procreation

They can only teach what is true.

just with the methods used. In this case I would understand why using natural birth control is okay, as its natural, but artificial birth control is not as its artificial.

Natural and artificial are in no way part of the Church’s teaching on this matter. An artificial heart is artificial, and perfectly moral.

“Natural” and “artificial” are not relevant. They are not distinctions the Church makes. The Church does not teach contraception is wrong because it is “artificial.” Withdrawing is wrong and it has no mechanism at all. Oral or manual stimulation in place of intercourse are also contraceptive but use no device.

It is not their “artificialness” but their disordered nature and disordering of the act that make them wrong.

The whole, “intercourse can only happen if its procreative” is a flawed argument.

That isn’t an argument the Church makes. It is an argument you keep making and I keep telling you the Church does not make.

If this were indeed the Church’s teaching then post-menopausal intercourse would be immoral. It is not.

 

[LaSainte]

I think it has to do with 2 things really.

1.) if the Church declares any form of ABC to be licit, then her infallibility is called into question. This is exemplified in the minority report given by Paul VI’s commission on birth control. This alone was given as the primary reason why ABC should not be allowed.

2.) slippery slope. It’s all about where the sperm goes. You start allowing barrier methods, you have to allow coitus interruptus and oral sex, then sodomy. It’s not a huge leap from there before a good portion of the argument against homosexuality falls apart.

Don’t get me wrong, I follow Church teaching in this matter, but I do not fully understand it and these 2 reasons are what stick out the most to me as being the main tentpoles in the Church’s position. Most other reasons given (the Trinitarian exchange of love, accepting your spouse’s fertility, etc.) just seem like rationalizations to me regarding a concept nobody really understands.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Natural family planning should be more appropriately called “natural birth control” or " natural contraception", and the talk about about sex only being acceptable if its procreative to be false.

Natural Family Planning is so named because it can be used to achieve or avoid pregnancy.

If a couple intends procreation but they don’t conceive a child, would you say their marital act was truly procreative?

 

[1ke]

these 2 reasons are what stick out the most to me as being the main tentpoles in the Church’s position

Neither of these is a foundation, or “tent pole” as you call it, of Church teaching on contraception.

 

[LaSainte]

Neither of these is a foundation, or “tent pole” as you call it, of Church teaching on contraception.

Not officially.

 

[razredge]

I think it has to do with 2 things really.

1.) if the Church declares any form of ABC to be licit, then her infallibility is called into question. This is exemplified in the minority report given by Paul VI’s commission on birth control. This alone was given as the primary reason why ABC should not be allowed.
.

Yes, exactly - the Church’s stance is not so much a moral one as it is a political one.

As the then Karol Woyjtyla stated in the minority report:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 [when Casti Connubii was promulgated) and in 1951.

“It should likewise have to be admitted that for a hall a century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error. This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which Popes and Bishops have either condemned, or at least not approved

It is not a contradiction.

The act is a completed act of intercourse. It is ordered to its natural end and it is not disrupted before, during, or after. Therefore, it is ordered in the way God designed it.

Wait - are you saying God designed sex now? That argument fails unless you’re a creationist or ID proponent.

Please explain how something like contraception which has exactly the same outcome as NFP is morally evil - plus you do realise that the Church Fathers also held that the rhythm method/NFP was morally evil, right?

However I did not say that “the church does not believe that sex has to be procreative”. The Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be ordered

to procreation.

This is a premise of a highly specious argument which defines procreation so as to allow NFP while disallowing everything else and so is circular reasoning.
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[LaSainte]

Yes, exactly - the Church’s stance is not so much a moral one as it is a political one.

As the then Karol Woyjtyla stated in the minority report:
1ke;7930326:

It is not a contradiction.

The act is a completed act of intercourse. It is ordered to its natural end and it is not disrupted before, during, or after. Therefore, it is ordered in the way God designed it.

Wait - are you saying God designed sex now? That argument fails unless you’re a creationist or ID proponent.

 

[manualman]

ABC makes the practitioner the master and commander of when and how. NFP makes its participants deny themselves when serious reasons prevent pregnancies. In the former case, sex becomes ordered towards mere self indulgence. In the latter sex remains ordered towards gift-focused.

Or as my favorite snippet puts it:

The reason NFP is OK when ABC is not is precisely the same reason people are so desperate to rationalize ABC.