Birth Control

[Vico]

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?

It is considered as a series of acts by the Magisterium (1 Cor 7, Pope Pius XII, other):

The form of the conjugal act apt for the creation of children is part of the marital covenent and is what is granted and is to be used only in the form granted.

Abstinance from the conjugal act is permissible for a time, coming together again to help with your lack of self control.

The responsibility of bonum prolis or good of children comes with the use of the conjugal act, but couples may be free of that responsibility with just and moral eugenic, social, economic, or medical causes.

 

[PassingThru]

It is considered as a series of acts by the Magisterium (1 Cor 7, Pope Pius XII, other):

The form of the conjugal act apt for the creation of children is part of the marital covenent and is what is granted and is to be used only in the form granted.

OK, very well.

So, you are OK with the idea of “modifying the act” also applying to a series of acts.

You also have the line “apt for the creation of children”, which NFP clearly violates.

So, NFP does alter the act, or series of acts. It also creates sex that is clearly not “apt for the creation of children” by specific design, and by altering the act (using our better application of the term “act”)

From what I see, that leads me to believe it violates both points. Where am I missing something?

 

[Vico]

OK, very well.

So, you are OK with the idea of “modifying the act” also applying to a series of acts.

You also have the line “apt for the creation of children”, which NFP clearly violates.

So, NFP does alter the act, or series of acts. It also creates sex that is clearly not “apt for the creation of children” by specific design, and by altering the act (using our better application of the term “act”)

From what I see, that leads me to believe it violates both points. Where am I missing something?

Not modifying “the act” but the series of acts (including the conjugal act and the timing of the conjugal acts to appese those that insist upon both as act). You are missing that abstinance is permitted in scripture 1 Cor 7 specifically as part of a series.

 

[PassingThru]

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.

Hmmmmm.

This entire quote is basically conjecture, frankly. Its nice, but does not in any way explain the issue. At all. This entire bit has already assumed that the NFP couple exemplifies the above characteristics (presumptuous, unfounded), and the a couple not using NFP does not contain these characteristics (even more presumptuous).

How does this add any useful information to distinguish the two?

(Sorry sounds so blunt, but this makes no sense to me…)

edit: The above does describe many NFP couples, BTW. Dont get me wrong. It is not, however, anything distinguishing. I know other couples for whom NFP was a curse, and that is putting it lightly. Same for ABC.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Hmmmmm.

This entire quote is basically conjecture, frankly. Its nice, but does not in any way explain the issue. At all. This entire bit has already assumed that the NFP couple exemplifies the above characteristics (presumptuous, unfounded), and the a couple not using NFP does not contain these characteristics (even more presumptuous).

How does this add any useful information to distinguish the two?

(Sorry sounds so blunt, but this makes no sense to me…)

edit: The above does describe many NFP couples, BTW. Dont get me wrong. It is not, however, anything distinguishing. I know other couples for whom NFP was a curse, and that is putting it lightly. Same for ABC.

I pointed this out in the previous post… this is how the church teaches us to *approach *NFP (in the correct mentality)… but those who approach it from this so-called “contraceptive mentality” are never going to be satisfied.

 

[PassingThru]

Not modifying “the act” but the series of acts (including the conjugal act and the timing of the conjugal acts to appese those that insist upon both as act). You are missing that abstinance is permitted in scripture 1 Cor 7 specifically as part of a series.

No, we all understand that abstinance is permitted.

What you need to explain is how systematic abstinance (modification of the act) specifically to remove the ability to procreate is allowable.

You *just *posted:

"The form of the conjugal act apt for the creation of children is part of the marital covenent and is what is granted and is to be used only in the form granted."

It says, right there, “apt for the creation of children…is the only form granted.”

We have established that we are modifying the act in order to specifically alter it so that is is NOT apt for the creation of children. You just wrote this. Its almost by definition a violation of what you said is not to be violated. This is what I am asking you.

Am I going crazy?!?!

 

[Em_in_FL]

No, we all understand that abstinance is permitted.

What you need to explain is how systematic abstinance (modification of the act) specifically to remove the ability to procreate is allowable.

You *just *posted:

"The form of the conjugal act apt for the creation of children is part of the marital covenent and is what is granted and is to be used only in the form granted."

It says, right there, “apt for the creation of children…is the only form granted.”

We have established that we are modifying the act in order to specifically alter it so that is is NOT apt for the creation of children. You just wrote this. Its almost by definition a violation of what you said is not to be violated. This is what I am asking you.

Am I going crazy?!?!

“Apt to” doesn’t mean it “has to”…

 

[PassingThru]

I pointed this out in the previous post… this is how the church teaches us to *approach *NFP (in the correct mentality)… but those who approach it from this so-called “contraceptive mentality” are never going to be satisfied.

Well, OK.

So, both NFP and ABC can be used with a “contraceptive mentality”.

How you decide to use NFP, in order to enjoy sex, but reduce the chance of children as close to 0 as is possible is not a “contraceptive mentality” is beyond me. I guess the accusations that if you use ABC you have a “contraceptive mentality” but if you use NFP you are assumed to not, to me, sounds silly and judgmental. And, if that is all this argument is reduced to, I see no reason to bother with a distinction, personally.

Again, the explanation you quoted is perfectly good. I get it. I fail to understand how it translates.

 

[PassingThru]

“Apt to” doesn’t mean it “has to”…

Sorry, that is a dodge.

Of course it doesn’t mean “has to”. Where did I say anything that infers that?

The quote from Vice is “apt to produce children”. Meaning, likely, or its natural tendency. Engaging in an NFP program that is “99.9%” effective at removing the likelyhood of a child resulting is most definitely in violation of “apt to produce children.”

Simple definition. You were being straight till this point. Do you have a comment on Vicos information?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Sorry, that is a dodge.

Of course it doesn’t mean “has to”. Where did I say anything that infers that?

The quote from Vice is “apt to produce children”. Meaning, likely, or its natural tendency. Engaging in an NFP program that is “99.9%” effective at removing the likelyhood of a child resulting is most definitely in violation of “apt to produce children.”

Simple definition. You were being straight till this point. Do you have a comment on Vicos information?

Sorry, didn’t mean to dodge… working and such.

Sure… "The form of the conjugal act apt for the creation of children is part of the marital covenant and is what is granted and is to be used only in the form granted."

Let’s break it down - and yes this will get a little “technical”:
The form of the conjugal act apt for the creation of children means “marital sex where the husband completes inside the wife” and nothing is done “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” CCC2370 (meaning he can’t pull out, there can’t be any barriers, and no pills/potions can be taken to change the chemistry of the body).

The form of the conjugal act…is part of the marital covenant and is what is granted and is to be used only in the form granted. means that this is part of a Sacramental Covenant… and because it’s granted Sacramentally it can have caveats by the church about how it’s used.

 

[PassingThru]

Sorry, didn’t mean to dodge… working and such.

Sure… "The form of the conjugal act apt for the creation of children is part of the marital covenant and is what is granted and is to be used only in the form granted."

Let’s break it down - and yes this will get a little “technical”:
The form of the conjugal act apt for the creation of children means “marital sex where the husband completes inside the wife” and nothing is done “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” (meaning he can’t pull out, there can’t be any barriers, and no pills/potions can be taken to change the chemistry of the body).

The form of the conjugal act…is part of the marital covenant and is what is granted and is to be used only in the form granted. means that this is part of a Sacramental Covenant… and because it’s granted Sacramentally it can have caveats by the church about how it’s used.

Very well then.

This gets back to my original point. It is a religious belief.

When simple statements, definitions and logic all fail, and we are required to subscribe to a particular faith system, then that is all it is. “It can have caveats by the church about how it’s used” for example. Which is all well and good. More power to you.

It does not, therefor, mean that your explanations make any sense outside a very (very) narrow viewpoint. When you say sex using NFP is open to life, you need to understand how to anyone else that is a silly statement. Or this “apt to produce children”. Or procreative. Or telling people what there own mentality is.

If you believe what you just posted is the only way to look at that statement, then we have pretty much hit the end of the usefulness of words in a discussion.

Again, not that that is a bad thing. Its your belief, which is where I would never venture to tread or say you are mistaken.

I believe you are mistaken!

But, in a vain attempt to answer your point:

Form, therefor, ignores anything not mechanical in nature then?

Vico is pretty sure about modifying an act or a series of acts. Can you explain how to modify a series of acts vice an act? (I can, but you don’t believe it…)

 

[Vico]

No, we all understand that abstinance is permitted.

What you need to explain is how systematic abstinance (modification of the act) specifically to remove the ability to procreate is allowable.

You *just *posted:

"The form of the conjugal act apt for the creation of children is part of the marital covenent and is what is granted and is to be used only in the form granted."

It says, right there, “apt for the creation of children…is the only form granted.”

We have established that we are modifying the act in order to specifically alter it so that is is NOT apt for the creation of children. You just wrote this. Its almost by definition a violation of what you said is not to be violated. This is what I am asking you.

Am I going crazy?!?!

That is the correct question to ask.

We have **not **established that we are modifying “the act” using the same meaning of act that is apt. You must understand the canonical statement in the way it was written, not with your own imposed defintion. The use of apt for the creation of children refers specifically to the conjugal act, coitis, not to abstinance. Abstinance is another allowable behavior. The exception to the bonus prolis is given by Pope Pius XII is the topic of the third statement. Read together you can get an understanding.

Since we are given both the ability to abstain and to conjugate, the series is:

Sum (c1 + c2 + c3 + … cn + a1 + a2 + a3 … an)

where c = coitus (apt form), a = abstinance, and each element is at a different time.

Really the question is what is abstinance apt for? Abstinance is apt for some prayer and fasting, and lack of demand, and resonable delay, and unjust or immoral situations, and for moral and just eugenic, social, economic, or medical conditions.

 

[PassingThru]

That is the correct question to ask.

We have **not **established that we are modifying “the act” using the same meaning of act that is apt. You must understand the canonical statement in the way it was written, not with your own imposed defintion. The use of apt for the creation of children refers specifically to the conjugal act, coitis, not to abstinance. Abstinance is another allowable behavior. The exception to the bonus prolis is given by Pope Pius XII is the topic of the third statement. Read together you can get an understanding.

Since we are given both the ability to abstain and to conjugate, the series is:

Sum (c1 + c2 + c3 + … cn + a1 + a2 + a3 … an)

where c = coitus (apt form), a = abstinance, and each element is at a different time.

Really the question is what is abstinance apt for? Abstinance is apt for some prayer and fasting, and lack of demand, and resonable delay, and unjust or immoral situations, and for moral and just eugenic, social, economic, or medical conditions.

Alrightythen.

Different direction maybe…

If a couple is practicing NFP, why do they have sex?

(To your post: As I posted earlier, you have footnoted, wordsmithed, and definition gymnasticsed around the point, so I won’t force the issue.)

 

[Em_in_FL]

Very well then.

This gets back to my original point. It is a religious belief.

When simple statements, definitions and logic all fail, and we are required to subscribe to a particular faith system, then that is all it is. “It can have caveats by the church about how it’s used” for example. Which is all well and good. More power to you.

It does not, therefor, mean that your explanations make any sense outside a very (very) narrow viewpoint. When you say sex using NFP is open to life, you need to understand how to anyone else that is a silly statement. Or this “apt to produce children”. Or procreative. Or telling people what there own mentality is.

If you believe what you just posted is the only way to look at that statement, then we have pretty much hit the end of the usefulness of words in a discussion.

Again, not that that is a bad thing. Its your belief, which is where I would never venture to tread or say you are mistaken.

I believe you are mistaken!

But, in a vain attempt to answer your point:
**
Form, therefor, ignores anything not mechanical in nature then?**

Vico is pretty sure about modifying an act or a series of acts. Can you explain how to modify a series of acts vice an act? (I can, but you don’t believe it…)

Absolutely it’s a religious belief… otherwise we wouldn’t be arguing the *morality *of the act…

Can you rephrase the question I bolded?.. I don’t understand…

 

[kbachler]

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?

First, please don’t start launching anger at me. I’d prefer if you would at least take the time to ask a question before getting angry, to make certain that you understand what I am saying.

Second, I have, MANY, MANY, MANY times in this thread stated that for ABC we are speaking primarily of barrier ABC, or IF we are discussing other forms, then we are, for purposes of discussion assuming that the other forms do not cause abortion.

Third, I REALLY DON’T see any LOGICAL difference between a barrier method, for example, and NFP. If a couple has birth control knowledge - i.e. what it does and how to use it - that factor is basically the same irrespective of form. If the couple uses that knowledge to avoid pregnancy, then the intent is the same. Using NFP in this way or ABC BOTH involve the use of a barrier, and in either case the sperm is kept from fertilizing an egg.

There are beneficial hormonal aspects (that generally apply to the unitive asects of the marital act) that are negatively impacted by changing the timing and frequency of the Act, so it is possible to reasonably argue that NFP is LESS MORAL than ABC. These aspects are less dependent upon the quality of the act and more dependent on the frequency, where ABC appears to allow greater frequency with better birth control results.

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”

Well, I have to correct you again, because I understood your point in its entirety. I just think that your argument is completely wrong. The purpose IS the same. If the purpose wasn’t to prevent pregnancy, NFP+abstinence WOULD NOT EXIST. People wouldn’t do it. They do it because its the alternative they have.

Therefore, whn people use NFP, THEY ARE concretely trying to interfere wih God’s design - IF that is the argument you use for BC, then the same argument MUST LOGICALLY be made about NFP.

When you use NFP you ARE physically preventing the sperm from reaching the egg by controlling the timing out of the act.

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

Then quit calling me names, and demonstrate the logical absurdiy. So far, after many pages, no one has. If its logically absurd, it should be very simple to construct a logical proof to demonstrate the absurdity.

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.

I HAVE posted for that very reason. I strongly believe in “Love God with all your heart, all your spirit, and all your MIND.” This means that God is understandable. And I don’t see any logic between the distinction between NFP and ABC (in context remember) at this point.

Please, demonstrate it.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Alrightythen.

Different direction maybe…

If a couple is practicing NFP, why do they have sex?

To renew their marital covenant.

CCC 2360
Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

 

[kbachler]

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.

There IS an issue regarding timing in the marital covenent with mutual consent, if the abstinence is based on NFP, since then the INTENT is exactly the same intent as ABC. And we know from Scripture that intent - what is in your heart - is as important as the act itself - for example, Christs comments on adultery.

What you continue to do, Vico, is use circular logic. Its wrong because the church says so. That is NOT an answer because the question being asked is HOW to differentiate between ABC and NFP? If one is moral and the other immoral, there must be a clear-cut reason other than “the Church says so.” God IS a God of reason.

So if the reason is so clear-cut, why don’t you simply state it?

 

[Em_in_FL]

There are beneficial hormonal aspects (that generally apply to the unitive asects of the marital act) that are negatively impacted by changing the timing and frequency of the Act, so it is possible to reasonably argue that NFP is LESS MORAL than ABC. These aspects are less dependent upon the quality of the act and more dependent on the frequency, where ABC appears to allow greater frequency with better birth control results.

Denying these “hormonal aspects” that you’re speaking of is not immoral. Furthermore, they can be achieved in other ways that sex.

Well, I have to correct you again, because I understood your point in its entirety. I just think that your argument is completely wrong. The purpose IS the same. If the purpose wasn’t to prevent pregnancy, NFP+abstinence WOULD NOT EXIST. People wouldn’t do it. They do it because its the alternative they have.

Therefore, whn people use NFP, THEY ARE concretely trying to interfere wih God’s design - IF that is the argument you use for BC, then the same argument MUST LOGICALLY be made about NFP.

When you use NFP you ARE physically preventing the sperm from reaching the egg by controlling the timing out of the act.

God’s design doesn’t *require *that sex must *always *(timing wise) be available.
Consider situations where abstaining is necessary - health, surgery, postpartum, etc…

 

[Em_in_FL]

There IS an issue regarding timing in the marital covenent with mutual consent, if the abstinence is based on NFP, since then the INTENT is exactly the same intent as ABC. And we know from Scripture that intent - what is in your heart - is as important as the act itself - for example, Christs comments on adultery.

Speaking on INTENT:

CCC 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.

 

[kbachler]

The form of the conjugal act is NOT changed.

But this is a false statement. If the form were not changed (through variation in the timing and frequency of the act) the couple would not be “meeting their intent” of delaying pregnancy.

Awareness of fertility doesn’t physically change the act in any way.

But that isn’t the issue. The issue is awareness AND ACTING on it to change the timing and the frequency of the act - AND that DOES change the act.

If it DIDN’T change the act, then NFP would be worthless in terms of birth control.

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.

see above. You’re hashing and rehashing THE WRONG POINT.

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.

Perhaps - but they would only have to do so to be logically consistent with their stance on ABC.

ALTERNATIVELY, they could allow (barrier) ABC, and thereby become logcally consistent with their stance on NFP.

OR

Alternatively someone could demonstrate a logical difference between NFP and ABC.

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.

I would hope that instead of it never being the case, that the Church would decide to follow logic (brought about by God) and become consistent in their stance between ABC and NFP.