Birth Control

[kbachler]

This is what the Catechism says:

Artificial Birth Control would be anything other than taking recourse to the rhythm of the cycle (periodic continence, NFP)…

2368
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

2369
"By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

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.158 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:159

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.160

Yes, I have seen it.

1. Consider: “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.” Why? On what basis is using the brain to measure and determine this period less of a moral issue than using the brain to plan and implement any OTHER form of contraception?
2. Consider: “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 statement is NOT true if the two people are in agreement on contraception - just as it is for NFP. What if two people are in disagreement for NFP? Would NFP still be OK?
3. Consider: “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. .” - How is practicing NFP any LESS of a refusa to be open to life than ABC if its failure rate compared to ABC is lower than ABC’s? Are we actually going to argue that NFP “empowers” God to still create a pregnancy while ABC does not? That argument would be ludicrous, of course.
4. Consider: “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.” This of course is not true if the two people are in agreement on the use of contraception.

So again - how does any of this even pretend to make a semblance of sense?

 

[spunjalebi]

I think kbachler brings up some good points. I also have yet to see someone address the issue of what St. Paul says about not denying each other, even if it’s mutual, but only for prayer and fasting. No wonder themarriagebed.com thinks that NFP isn’t theological!

 

[catharina]

Yes, I have seen it.

1. Consider: “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.” Why? On what basis is using the brain to measure and determine this period less of a moral issue than using the brain to plan and implement any OTHER form of contraception?
2. Consider: “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 statement is NOT true if the two people are in agreement on contraception - just as it is for NFP. What if two people are in disagreement for NFP? Would NFP still be OK?
3. Consider: “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. .” - How is practicing NFP any LESS of a refusa to be open to life than ABC if its failure rate compared to ABC is lower than ABC’s? Are we actually going to argue that NFP “empowers” God to still create a pregnancy while ABC does not? That argument would be ludicrous, of course.
4. Consider: “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.” This of course is not true if the two people are in agreement on the use of contraception.

So again - how does any of this even pretend to make a semblance of sense?

Again:

NFP IS NOT CONTRACEPTION!

It provides no interference within the mariatl act.
So so so simple to grasp that!

 

[kbachler]

Natural Family Planning is simply observation–observations of temp, mucous, cervix to determine a woman’s cycle. It is information. You can do 2 things with this info: engage in the marital or not (abstain). These are both moral choices in any part of the woman’s cycle. What NFP is not is contraception as it does nothing to alter any act of sex. Contraception seeks to render the act sterile.

Perhaps some reading of the Catechism and it’s accompanying citations would be helpful for many of you.

NFP is more than that. It is information true - and the information indicates when the woman is not fertile. A person can ethen engage or abstain.

One may also use observation to determine that blocking the sperm from reaching the egg prevents pregnancy. One may then similarly take action of blocking the sperm and engaging, or not.

The claim that NFP is not contraception is, frankly, ridiculous. It times the act when the woman is infertile. If you make that argument (that changing timing is fine) the Pill should be fine, since it in effect changes the timing of fertility.

The entire point of NFP is avoidance of pregnancy - otherwise it would not exist. It IS contraception.

I’m serious here - make a reasonable argument that NFP is any more “natural” than any other form of contraception.

 

[kbachler]

Again:

NFP IS NOT CONTRACEPTION!

It provides no interference within the mariatl act.
So so so simple to grasp that!

Contraception is a means to prevent conception. People routinely point out that NFP does that. If it didn’t - it would even exist. To argue that it isn’t, is frankly, a lie, and you should be ashamed of that.

How does the Pill provide any more interference with the marital act than NFP? The Pill even allows more spontaneity to the marital act. One could easily argue that it provides LESS interference.

I’m open to NFP being the “one right” way. But provide an argument to establish that

 

[Em_in_FL]

NFP is more than that. It is information true - and the information indicates when the woman is not fertile. A person can ethen engage or abstain.

One may also use observation to determine that blocking the sperm from reaching the egg prevents pregnancy. One may then similarly take action of blocking the sperm and engaging, or not.

The claim that NFP is not contraception is, frankly, ridiculous. It times the act when the woman is infertile. If you make that argument (that changing timing is fine) the Pill should be fine, since it in effect changes the timing of fertility.

The entire point of NFP is avoidance of pregnancy - otherwise it would not exist. It IS contraception.

I’m serious here - make a reasonable argument that NFP is any more “natural” than any other form of contraception.

It has nothing to do with being “natural”. It has everything to do with total reciprocal marital love that is denied when anything is used or done* to the sexual act* that disassociates either the unitive or procreative nature. NFP does nothing “to the sexual act” because the sexual act isn’t done. The couple is abstaining rather than engaging.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Contraception is a means to prevent conception. People routinely point out that NFP does that. If it didn’t - it would even exist. To argue that it isn’t, is frankly, a lie, and you should be ashamed of that.

How does the Pill provide any more interference with the marital act than NFP? The Pill even allows more spontaneity to the marital act. One could easily argue that it provides LESS interference.

I’m open to NFP being the “one right” way. But provide an argument to establish that

Contraception means that the sexual act is happening and you are taking action to contradict the possibility of conception.
NFP is abstaining. There is no possible conception to contradict… how is that a lie?

 

[catharina]

Contraception is a means to prevent conception. People routinely point out that NFP does that. If it didn’t - it would even exist. To argue that it isn’t, is frankly, a lie, and you should be ashamed of that.

How does the Pill provide any more interference with the marital act than NFP? The Pill even allows more spontaneity to the marital act. One could easily argue that it provides LESS interference.

I’m open to NFP being the “one right” way. But provide an argument to establish that

Wow. Thanks for calling me a liar and encoraging me to be ashamed.
Not a chance … sorry about your ruffled feathers, but the lie is yours.
Surely your lie is not intentional - is it?
No reason for me to DEMAND that you should be ashamed of yourself, huh?

Under discussion here is:
ABC: artificial birth control
NFP: natural family planning.

Work to GRASP the difference.
One is artificial - there is interfence with the natural processes.
The other is natural - there is no unnatural interference allowed.

SO SIMPLE.

 

[kdragonfly]

I really dislike the way people are attacking CountrySinger, when it’s very obvious that she’s rather confused, apprehensive, and nervous about this whole thing. Heck, if my NFP teachers tried to sell to me that it’s 99% effective with avoiding pregnancy but had children with less than 2 years of spacing, and were only married for a few years but had 5 children, I’d freak out too!

She’s honestly not here to stir up the pot. If anyone bothered paying attention, she’s also struggling with her faith in conjunction with this issue.

Agreed.

 

[catharina]

Contraception means that the sexual act is happening and you are taking action to contradict the possibility of conception.
NFP is abstaining. There is no possible conception to contradict… how is that a lie?

Maybe some folks don’t want to accept truth?

 

[kbachler]

Wow. Thanks for calling me a liar and encoraging me to be ashamed.
Not a chance … sorry about your ruffled feathers, but the lie is yours.
Surely your lie is not intentional - is it?

Under discussion here is:
ABC: artificial birth control
NFP: natural family planning.

Work to GRASP the difference.
One is artificial - there is interfence with the natural processes.
The other is natural - there is no unnatural interference allowed.

SO SIMPLE.

Nope, no lie here.

Neither method is any more artificial than the other. The yboth interfere with contraception. A barrier in time (NFP) is no less a barrier than a barrier in space (condom.) Needing human knowledge and taking human action to do one is no more a dilemma than doing the other.

According to YOUR argument, David was fine when he had Uriah sent into a dangerous battle because that didn’t interfere with the natural process - right? He just had the decision to have Joab send Uriah into danger or not. Nothing unnatural - or immoral - about that.

I understand the argument. Its a very poor one. Perhaps one of the poorest arguments provide by the Church.

 

[spunjalebi]

I think kbachler is pointing out that in both methods, there is avoidance of pregnancy. If avoidance of pregnancy is the goal, how is that different from a contraceptive? That is the point being made. It doesn’t matter if it’s natural or not, the fact is NFP aims to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I think kbachler is pointing out that in both methods, there is avoidance of pregnancy. If avoidance of pregnancy is the goal, how is that different from a contraceptive? That is the point being made. It doesn’t matter if it’s natural or not, the fact is NFP aims to avoid pregnancy.

If the reasons are just/serious/grave, then there’s no problem with that.

2368
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

 

[kdragonfly]

I think it’s good that there are differing points of view. It’s making for some really good discussion and examination of faith. So I just wanted to say thanks.

 

[catharina]

I think kbachler is pointing out that in both methods, there is avoidance of pregnancy. If avoidance of pregnancy is the goal, how is that different from a contraceptive? That is the point being made. It doesn’t matter if it’s natural or not, the fact is NFP aims to avoid pregnancy.

A desire to postpone pregnancy, if possible, through NFP is worlds apart from taking action through ABC to thwart pregnancy despite sexual union. The difference is crystal clear to me.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Nope, no lie here.

Neither method is any more artificial than the other. The yboth interfere with contraception. A barrier in time (NFP) is no less a barrier than a barrier in space (condom.) Needing human knowledge and taking human action to do one is no more a dilemma than doing the other.

According to YOUR argument, David was fine when he had Uriah sent into a dangerous battle because that didn’t interfere with the natural process - right? He just had the decision to have Joab send Uriah into danger or not. Nothing unnatural - or immoral - about that.

I understand the argument. Its a very poor one. Perhaps one of the poorest arguments provide by the Church.

The “barrier in time” was created by God. This method does not disassociate the unitive and procreative aspects of marital sexuality.
Other methods do and are contrary to moral teachings.

 

[kbachler]

Contraception means that the sexual act is happening and you are taking action to contradict the possibility of conception.
NFP is abstaining. There is no possible conception to contradict… how is that a lie?

NFP is abstaining when you are likely to be fertile, AND not (necessarily) abstaining when you are not likely to be fertile. You ARE taking an act to contradict the possibility of conception, and, according to the stats people like to quote here, you are doing so in such a way that it is MORE LIKELY to decrease the possibility of conception than other forms of contraception.

Again - if it were not for the goal of being able to have sex without pregnancy, NFP would not exist per se. We would simply have, for example, abstention for prayer. The fact that its CALLED NFP belies the fact that it is “family planning” and hence “contraception.”

 

[catharina]

I think it’s good that there are differing points of view. It’s making for some really good discussion and examination of faith. So I just wanted to say thanks.

Oh sure - and any time you’re moved to offer an apology for calling me a liar and for telling me to be “ashamed” of myself, I guess you’ll be saying that too. Or not …

 

[Em_in_FL]

NFP is abstaining when you are likely to be fertile, AND not (necessarily) abstaining when you are not likely to be fertile. You ARE taking an act to contradict the possibility of conception, and, according to the stats people like to quote here, you are doing so in such a way that it is MORE LIKELY to decrease the possibility of conception than other forms of contraception.

Again - if it were not for the goal of being able to have sex without pregnancy, NFP would not exist per se. We would simply have, for example, abstention for prayer. The fact that its CALLED NFP belies the fact that it is “family planning” and hence “contraception.”

You are looking at a woman’s cycle as a whole… that’s irrelevant. Each and every time the act takes place must be both unitive and procreative, which is the case with NFP, but not with ABC.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Just in case this definition wasn’t caught earlier in the discussion I’ll repeat it…

Procreation means having relations in a way that could bring about life.
In more crude layman’s terms… it means that the husband must finish inside his wife. Whether or not she is fertile at that given moment is irrelevant.

Again… just because a couple chooses to use NFP and decides to have relations during the infertile phases of her cycle doesn’t mean that procreation doesn’t take place.