Birth Control

[Anna1345]

I disagree. The purpose of NFP (in combination with abstinence) is that you aren’t taking it as designed, but as you can manipulate the timing of it. How is a manipulation of timing (temporal manipulation) any better than manipulation of a barrier (spatial manipulation) especially when the intent of the two is the same?

Timing with this method is imperfect – however we are not getting rid of sperm nor manipulating an egg. Everything is still doing and going to where it needs to go, however if it is not time, it is not time and baby will not form. It is still natural design by God. We try to time things but often things happen only in God’s time. When we use a physical barrier or a hormonal barrier we are taking concrete steps to avoid bringing into this world something God wanted (that whole free will thing). We are playing God. When we use NFP, we are not playing god, we are simply trying to avoid man made time tables.

 

[agapewolf]

I’m sorry but medically this is only true for women who have regular cycles and no other pre existing conditions.

…

You are incorrect.

The 4 modern methods of NFP are DESIGNED for irregular cycles and pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, you just need a calendar. Modern methods of NFP are SYMPTOM based…which means they look at the symptoms of that day to know whether one is fertile or not. It doesn’t depend on regularity at all.

In fact, I started Creighton method for my health, and found and had diagnosed several health conditions from them. They have been treated. I am not textbook, but I can clearly tell when I am fertile.

Others might not be so clear (by the way, creighton is designed to help distinguish among many different “murky” symptoms), but that does not mean it isn’t effective.

 

[kbachler]

Yes, you are taking it, or leaving it, exactly as designed. Just like to take it or leave it because you are going to your mother in laws for dinner, or because you have the flu. You are either doing it or you are not. If you use ABC, you are altering the act.

On another point, I also still do not know why you (seem to be) assuming that quantity is decreased when using NFP.

Sorry, you aren’t taking it or leaving it exactly as designed. You’re altering the act by altering the timing and frequency of the act. If there were no alteration - NFP wouldn’t even exist.

Altering the act temporally is no different than altering it spatially. Perhaps more difficult for the average person to grasp, but altered, just the same.

Logically, quantity is likely decreased when the available time for the act is decreased.

 

[kbachler]

Em answered your first question quite thoroughly, Church or God, so I will not repeat.

I am not interrupting the design of NFP by avoiding the fertile time. We are free to take it or leave it whenever we want, for whatever reason. If I take it, I take it all. If I leave it, I leave it all, unaltered. If I use ABC, I am taking it partway, I am altering the act itself.

Furthermore, NFP is nothing more than information. It can’t “not” exist. It is signs my body is giving, whether I pay attention to them or not, if I am fertile.

You are, however, interupting the design of the act by avoiding the fertile time, which is the point of NFP. If there were no alteration of the act, pregnancy would still occur, and NFP would not exist.

Yes, NFP can “not exist”, in the sense that information is meaningless without processing. A tree falls in the forest argument is a topic for Bishop Berkeley in another thread.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler,

The form of conjugal relations, that one grants the right to in the marital covenent, cannot be modified by the individuals.

And yet they modify it in NFP. Make up your mind.

 

[kbachler]

I’m sure, but I’m talking about the Catholic bible, not the torah–there certainly were arguements among the Jewish teachers about what books to include in their Holy Book, but the Catholic Church codified the books of the Catholic bible, so when people argue about what the Church teaches and then what is in or not in the bible, they often forget that the Church put the whole thing together–led by the Holy Spirit.

And I’m talking about your entire statement.

 

[kbachler]

Timing with this method is imperfect – however we are not getting rid of sperm nor manipulating an egg. Everything is still doing and going to where it needs to go, however if it is not time, it is not time and baby will not form. It is still natural design by God. We try to time things but often things happen only in God’s time. When we use a physical barrier or a hormonal barrier we are taking concrete steps to avoid bringing into this world something God wanted (that whole free will thing). We are playing God. When we use NFP, we are not playing god, we are simply trying to avoid man made time tables.

All birth control is imperfect, so your first argment is a non sequitur as it is not a distinguishing feature.

In fact you are getting rid of sperm by choosing timing that will not allow it to reach an egg. Only you are allowing your body to process the sperm elimination. You are also manipulating the egg by not letting sperm reach it when it is available.

The argument that there is no manipulation is fundamentally absurd. If there were no manipulation then the couple would still be getting pregnant and there would be no reason for NFP to begin with . OF COURSE there is manipulation, or no one would be using NFP. Let’s stop being foolish or lying about what is going on.

“When we use ABC, we are not palying god, we are simply trying to avoid man made time tables.”

I don’t see where this changes the logic, and so I don’t see where ABC differs from NFP.

 

[Anna1345]

You are incorrect.

The 4 modern methods of NFP are DESIGNED for irregular cycles and pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, you just need a calendar. Modern methods of NFP are SYMPTOM based…which means they look at the symptoms of that day to know whether one is fertile or not. It doesn’t depend on regularity at all.

In fact, I started Creighton method for my health, and found and had diagnosed several health conditions from them. They have been treated.** I am not textbook, but I can clearly tell when I am fertile.**

Others might not be so clear (by the way, creighton is designed to help distinguish among many different “murky” symptoms), but that does not mean it isn’t effective.

And now you have met me – for who, everything you just said is medically WRONG in regards to ANY form of NFP that exists for someone like me. They are ineffective for the issues I have. Period. I’m well versed in NFP because I FIRMLY believe in not using BC of anykind. What I was trying to say with out being so personal is that there ARE examples of women who need to prevent getting pregnant in a way that’s natural b/c she has life threatening conditions (for both mom and child) when pregnant which have resulted in the miscarriage of 14 pregnancies. But hey, keep telling everyone in the world that they are fail safe for every single type of woman out there – no one’s life may or may not depend on it (especially for someone who is not so well versed on their bodies and cycles as we are). Just like hormonal and barrier BCP methods, nothing is 100%.

 

[Anna1345]

All birth control is imperfect, so your first argment is a non sequitur as it is not a distinguishing feature.

In fact you are getting rid of sperm by choosing timing that will not allow it to reach an egg. Only you are allowing your body to process the sperm elimination. You are also manipulating the egg by not letting sperm reach it when it is available.

The argument that there is no manipulation is fundamentally absurd. If there were no manipulation then the couple would still be getting pregnant and there would be no reason for NFP to begin with . OF COURSE there is manipulation, or no one would be using NFP. Let’s stop being foolish or lying about what is going on.

"When we use ABC, we are not palying god, we are simply trying to avoid man made time tables."

I don’t see where this changes the logic, and so I don’t see where ABC differs from NFP.

First, if you are going to quote me in the bolded, at least quote what I actually said. Thanks. If you can’t see where the difference is, after being explained to you, I guess there is no reason in discussing it further. And really? You REALLY don’t see how chemically stopping an egg from being released or keeping sperm completely out of the body while continuing in sexual acts is not different? Really?

And you completely missed my point. Whether or not the method of preventing pregnancy is successful or not is irrelevant. What matters is the PURPOSE behind it. When people use BC, they are concretely trying to interfere with God’s design. PHYSICALLY trying to change how god has designed us. Whne you use NFP, you are not PHYSICALLY trying to DO anything with an egg, like NOT release it, or to expell it. You are not trying to keep sperm out of the body! And had you actually read it correctly you would have see where I wrote “there is manipulation of TIME”

No one is lying. I think you’re the one being a little absurd.

And you all wonder why people don’t like to post on here asking very sensitive, yet VERY important questions we are seeking answers to inorder to grow in our faith and to follow our faith.

 

[Vico]

And yet they modify it in NFP. Make up your mind.

I do not call NFP abstinance, however call it a modification if you want to, it is irrelevant. There is no issue regarding timing in the marital covenent with mutual consent. As St. Paul (1 Cor 7) has written, the couple is free to abstain for a time, with agreement. The conjugal act, when it occurs, must be of the form apt for creation of children, as the form defining consummation of the marital covenent is the object of marital consent.

 

[Jennifer_J]

And yet they modify it in NFP. Make up your mind.

The form of the conjugal act is NOT changed. Awareness of fertility doesn’t physically change the act in any way. This has been hashed and rehashed. The couple aware of their fertility or not aware of their fertility have the same act of sex–they are either naturally fertile or naturally infertile. Nothing is changed in the act. IF what you proclaim about fetility awareness is true, then the Church must make rules for when couples MUST have sex and that can ONLY be when the couple is most fertile. Since this isn’t the case and never will be, the couple is free to have sex whenever they want or don’t want, regardless of their knowledge of the potential fertility of the man or woman. What the couple can’t do is physically do something that renders the act being performed infertile–ie pills, patches, physical barriers, withdrawal. Additionally, if the Church took your tact, then abstinence would NEVER be licit. Again, this isn’t the case. Abstinence IS licit. Periodic abstinence is an alternative to total abstinence, not to contraceptives, which have always been seen as wrong in the eyes of the Church.

 

[Vico]

I do not call NFP abstinance, however call it a modification if you want to, it is irrelevant. There is no issue regarding timing in the marital covenent with mutual consent. As St. Paul (1 Cor 7) has written, the couple is free to abstain for a time, with agreement. The conjugal act, when it occurs, must be of the form apt for creation of children, as the form defining consummation of the marital covenent is the object of marital consent.

It should have read: I do not call NFP modification, however call it a modification if you want to, it is irrelevant.

 

[HouseArrest]

I disagree. The purpose of NFP (in combination with abstinence) is that you aren’t taking it as designed, but as you can manipulate the timing of it. How is a manipulation of timing (temporal manipulation) any better than manipulation of a barrier (spatial manipulation) especially when the intent of the two is the same?

You are taking it as designed, or leaving it as designed. You are either doing it or not. Manipulation of timing, if that is what you want to call it, is different from manipulation of a barrier because with timing, you are “rejecting” the entire act, not just part of it.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Logically, quantity is likely decreased when the available time for the act is decreased.

Actually, you’d be surprised. Many who use NFP report a “honeymoon effect” after the fertile phase… and make up for lost time.

In fact you are getting rid of sperm by choosing timing that will not allow it to reach an egg. Only you are allowing your body to process the sperm elimination. You are also manipulating the egg by not letting sperm reach it when it is available.

The argument that there is no manipulation is fundamentally absurd. If there were no manipulation then the couple would still be getting pregnant and there would be no reason for NFP to begin with . OF COURSE there is manipulation, or no one would be using NFP. Let’s stop being foolish or lying about what is going on.

This is the most confusing part of your mindset…

“The act” is not altered at all… the sex is the same whether it’s fertile or not.
Altering the TIMING isn’t immoral.
Altering the ACT is.

 

[PassingThru]

This entire thread is a repeat of a thread from about a year ago, and I was playing the role of kbachler. Vico was here as well!

I completely understand what kbachler is saying. I cannot understand the insistence of looking at the individual act, without accounting for the sexuality of the couple as a whole. Over and over it is repeated that the act is not modified, and not having sex is fine, ergo, NFP is good to go.

It is not that I am saying NFP is wrong. What I (and maybe others) are saying is that the LOGIC is flawed. If the logic made sense, more than 2-4% of Catholics would use NFP. I can get behind using NFP for religious reasons. Its when any attempt is made to explain the whys that the logic fall flat.

kbachlor is correct. NFP modifies the act (more specifically, a series of actions). Do not read that to be a one hour time frame of having sex. That is an unreasonable restriction. If you want that kind of logic, there are a dozen other ways to look at the issue that completely cloud ABC with NFP. Back to the point, if NFP did not alter the act, it would not be effective. Can anyone even attempt to reconcile how this is accounted for?

 

[Em_in_FL]

kbachlor is correct. NFP modifies the act (more specifically, a series of actions). Do not read that to be a one hour time frame of having sex. That is an unreasonable restriction. If you want that kind of logic, there are a dozen other ways to look at the issue that completely cloud ABC with NFP. Back to the point, if NFP did not alter the act, it would not be effective. Can anyone even attempt to reconcile how this is accounted for?

I think I’m beginning to understand your interpretation of the word “act”. You mean it as “sexuality within marriage” as a whole. You mean that the way you approach sexuality is altered when using NFP.

I agree.

But altering it from a mindset where sex is viewed as something that is either in the unitive or procreative (but never both) aspects to an entirely different mindset (where both are treated as beautiful gifts of creation that shouldn’t be torn apart) is a change in the *moral *realm. It’s a mindset change.

 

[PassingThru]

But altering it from a mindset where sex is viewed as something that is either in the unitive or procreative (but never both) aspects to an entirely different mindset (where both are treated as beautiful gifts of creation that shouldn’t be torn apart) is a change in the *moral *realm. It’s a mindset change.

Not 100% following you, but close.

Regardless, what you are saying above is assuming that one couple has a particular mindset, while a different couple has a different mindset. Which is a bit presumptuous. I assume you are making this judgement call based on some inherent difference between two methods, which is not very well established. Meaning, it sounds like you are relying on the inherent difference to create this negative mindset in a couple. This different mindset is why ABC is deemed bad. This is completely circular logic…

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Not 100% following you, but close.

Regardless, what you are saying above is assuming that one couple has a particular mindset, while a different couple has a different mindset. Which is a bit presumptuous. I assume you are making this judgement call based on some inherent difference between two methods, which is not very well established. Meaning, it sounds like you are relying on the inherent difference to create this negative mindset in a couple. This different mindset is why ABC is deemed bad. This is completely circular logic…

I completely agree with this. When it comes to NFP/ABC discussions, I have been told so many times on here “what mine and my Dh’s mindset is” and “what our marital act means” if we are using abc. And you know what? It simply isn’t true!! We are strong in our faith and feel the same about each other and have the same attitude regarding openess to life with both NFP and (non abortive) ABC. I just can’t believe it makes much difference.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Not 100% following you, but close.

Regardless, what you are saying above is assuming that one couple has a particular mindset, while a different couple has a different mindset. Which is a bit presumptuous. I assume you are making this judgement call based on some inherent difference between two methods, which is not very well established. Meaning, it sounds like you are relying on the inherent difference to create this negative mindset in a couple. This different mindset is why ABC is deemed bad. This is completely circular logic…

Sorry, you’re right… I’m referring to a term that I’ve read in many places both here on CAF and other Catholic boards and discussions (I didn’t make it up)… the “contraceptive mindset”… and yes, that’s probably totally circular logic. There are many who (here on CAF) have described once having this “contraceptive mindset” prior to understanding the teachings of the church - so I get this term from those who say they have had a “change in mindset”.

I believe it’s meant to describe those who find it morally okay to approach marital sexuality as something that can have the procreative and unitive aspects torn apart.
It’s completely possible for people to use NFP with a “contraceptive mindset” as well, so using the physical barrier, or taking a pill, or any “action” that is done is not considered any different than NFP because they believe everything in this “mindset” is considered contraceptive.

However, that’s not what the church teaches us about how to TRULY approach NFP

(post too long!)…

 

[Em_in_FL]

(continued)…

I think that Familiaris Consortio discusses this beautifully…

In an Integral Vision of the Human Person and of His or Her Vocation

1. In the context of a culture which seriously distorts or entirely misinterprets the true meaning of human sexuality, because it separates it from its essential reference to the person, the Church more urgently feels how irreplaceable is her mission of presenting sexuality as a value and task of the whole person, created male and female in the image of God.

In this perspective the Second Vatican Council clearly affirmed that “when there is a question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspect of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his or her acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced.”(85)

It is precisely by moving from “an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation,”(87) that Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church “is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.”(88) And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral “every action which, either 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.”(89)

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of “total” self-giving. 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.

When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as “ministers” of God’s plan and they “benefit from” their sexuality according to the original dynamism of “total” selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.(90)
**
In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never “used” as an “object” that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.**

^^^ especially that last portion I bolded…