Catholics: Defend NFP using patristics and Tradition

[wanner47]

And of course we would say that the Latins split away from the Church about 1000 years ago.

Of course you would.

 

[Rence]

But it seems to me a Catholic could say, “I’m pregnant, but I can’t afford to follow the Church’s rules regarding abortion” and justify it that way.

Well, yes, of course they could. There is really nothing to stop them, is there? But they could NOT do so and still remain in communion with the Church.

I agree with you, which is why I’m glad that NFP is available to those who need to space their children for financial reasons, regardless of location or circumstances. My larger point was that it’s not necessarily true that larger families are more expensive. You’re going to have the bills cited above whether or not you have 2 children or 6 children, and there are several ways to cut costs in non-essential areas to help pay for the essential ones.

It just doesn’t process for me to say that it’s not true that larger families are more expensive because a larger family means more mouths to feed, more bodies to clothe, more tuition to pay, more odds and ends to support those extra mouths and bodies. And it’s not like you can send the kids out to jobs, you can’t do that at least, not until they are at least 15. And the bills I cited will be the same regardless of family size yes, but that would be the resources needed to support the children specifically. Therefore, it would be a lot harder for someone living in a more expensive region to support 6 children than 1. And it would be a lot easier to raise either a large or a small family in a less expensive region. Each additional child brings additional bills. It seems that some families are much better at it that others. I can see that. However, I know someone who buys their clothes off the reduced rack at Neimen Marcus for $1-10 too That doesn’t mean every family, regardless of size, has the same resources and the same knack for making it work, and therefore should have the same number of children. That’s why not all families are called to be large.

I don’t have that perception of the Church at all. She has never left me to “solve my own problems.” I have always received guidance and sometimes material help whenever I needed it.

I am really grateful on your behalf that the Church has helped you. Catholic Charities helped with my grandmother’s daycare so that we could keep her at home when she had alzheimers, and family worked during the day. The Chicago Mejugorgie Center (I know I slaughtered that spelling) paid for some of my tutuion as well when I was younger. But now that my mom is sick, there are no resources to tap. I struggled through nursing school and wasn’t able to tap any resources. My brother didn’t get a dollar of support for his LPN training. Evidently there is a disparity in resource availability and access to it. Familes are struggling here where I live. They’re not going to be having large families. They’re not able to deal with what they have now. If the Church wants them to have more kids, the Church will have to help them to support the additional kids. That’s the reality of it. It’s not going to change until families can cope with taking care of the kids they have now so that they can afford to have more.

 

[silentstar]

What steps would that be? The point of NFP is to abstain (that is, to take no steps) during fertile times as part of responsible parenthood.

And how do you figure out when to abstain? you make observations, do charts or graphs, track cervical mucous - those are all active steps. You get to the abstaining part after you have already done a whole lot of real-world actions to figure out when the time to abstain is. NFP involves observation and action. In fact a lot more action than using a condom.

 

[silentstar]

How, exactly, does NFP frustrate conception?

See my answer to Rence. NFP very obviously frustrates conception - that is what the charts, the graphs, the temperature-taking, and the observations of cervical mucous are for - to figure out WHEN to abstain. It isn’t a passive decision to abstain. It is a decision reached after careful monitoring - monitoring which is done to frustrate conception.

 

[Rence]

And how do you figure out when to abstain? you make observations, do charts or graphs, track cervical mucous - those are all active steps. You get to the abstaining part after you have already done a whole lot of real-world actions to figure out when the time to abstain is. NFP involves observation and action. In fact a lot more action than using a condom.

Ok, so you’re inclined to think that tracking one’s fertility signs is the same as putting on a codom. I, on the other hand, believe that being aware of one’s fertility signs is the evaluation stage, before an action or inaction is taken - driven by the information available during the evaluation stage.

Sooo, then it’s pointless to argue the rules of the Church, that guide us to use NFP, when trying to discourage someone from using condoms…because they’re the same. That makes it a lot easier.

 

[silentstar]

If that’s his argument, it’s a weak one. Not only because NFP does nothing to prevent or inhibit already ejaculated sperm from reaching an egg (unlike condoms), but also because condoms violate the unitive aspect of a completed marital act by placing a physical, artificial barrier between the man and woman.

NFP is nothing but information provided to the couple, and based on that information they choose to either unite in a fully unitive and procreative marital act, or to prayerfully abstain by mutual consent.

Information is not morally neutral in every case, although it can be. I do not agree that a condom is bad and information on a woman’s cycle is morally neutral, or harmless. They are both ways to manipulate the reproductive process. But then I am not a practicing Catholic.

 

[wanner47]

Information is not morally neutral in every case, although it can be. I do not agree that a condom is bad and information on a woman’s cycle is morally neutral, or harmless. They are both ways to manipulate the reproductive process. But then I am not a practicing Catholic.

How does NFP prevent already-ejaculated sperm from reaching an egg?

The information NFP gives is morally neutral, as I have used that information to achieve pregnancy as well as to postpone it. In some cases, such as with my current pregnancy, I still tracked my cycle signs but my husband and I did not consciously “time” our intercourse to coincide with ovulation. I kept gathering my cycle information, however, because if I did conceive I wanted to know the date so I could more accurately predict my due date, or I wanted an idea of the day of my period’s arrival.

 

[silentstar]

Ok, so you’re inclined to think that tracking one’s fertility signs is the same as putting on a codom. I, on the other hand, believe that being aware of one’s fertility signs is the evaluation stage, before an action or inaction is taken - driven by the information available during the evaluation stage.

Sooo, then it’s pointless to argue the rules of the Church, that guide us to use NFP, when trying to discourage someone from using condoms…because they’re the same. That makes it a lot easier.

They aren’t the same. I personally think they achieve the same purpose, to modify reproductive activity. I am not judging whether that is good or bad. But I honestly don’t see a moral distinction here. The Church does b/c they reject physical barriers during sexual activity.

 

[SonCatcher]

Information is not morally neutral in every case…

Please cite any example where information per se is not morally neutral.

 

[Rence]

Information is not morally neutral in every case, although it can be. I do not agree that a condom is bad and information on a woman’s cycle is morally neutral, or harmless. They are both ways to manipulate the reproductive process. But then I am not a practicing Catholic.

That explains why you think gathering fertility information is considered an action. It’s not an action to impede natural conception according to the Church. This is the reason why they say NFP is allowed and ABCs are not. ABCs are physical and chemical barriers. Keeping track of fertility signs is not a chemical or physical barrier.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

See my answer to Rence. NFP very obviously frustrates conception - that is what the charts, the graphs, the temperature-taking, and the observations of cervical mucous are for - to figure out WHEN to abstain. It isn’t a passive decision to abstain. It is a decision reached after careful monitoring - monitoring which is done to frustrate conception.

frus·trate   /ˈfrʌstreɪt/ Show Spelled
[fruhs-treyt] Show IPA
verb, -trat·ed, -trat·ing, adjective
–verb (used with object)

1. to make (plans, efforts, etc.) worthless or of no avail; defeat; nullify: The student’s indifference frustrated the teacher’s efforts to help him.
2. to disappoint or thwart (a person): a talented woman whom life had frustrated.

If I am abstaining, I cannot frustrate conception. Frustrating conception means to engage in the act and doing something to cause it to be sterile.

 

[silentstar]

That explains why you think gathering fertility information is considered an action. It’s not an action to impede natural conception according to the Church. This is the reason why they say NFP is allowed and ABCs are not. ABCs are physical and chemical barriers. Keeping track of fertility signs is not a chemical or physical barrier.

I understand that. I will admit I have a dog in this fight having got genital herpes from child sexual assault and my husband having gotten the hepatitis C virus from blood transfusion. We have been abstaining for other reasons (the state of my mental health) and are not using contraception, but if we follow the Church then we can’t have sex ever again. I think that is too harsh - well I think it’s too harsh for anyone who has an STD except perhaps for AIDS where prevention is not 100%. but neither one of us asked for this - he got his virus from treatment related to a kidney transplant and I got mine related to abuse. b/c of his transplant we have to be more careful than other people and I’ve been told to use condoms.

I know what people say about anecdotal evidence - but this my life and I can’t get the issues to make sense in theory, either. the person who abused me did not care about how I was doing, or anything like that - that would require empathy he did not have. the hepatitis C virus had not been identified, much less screened for, when my husband got treatment - that meant we were totally clueless until later - which is probably the shape a lot of people are in actually.

 

[silentstar]

Please cite any example where information per se is not morally neutral.

when it comes at too high a cost - I imagine you would say that the use of information is what determines its morality. I agree most of the time. I assume you would agree that information related to genocide, etc. was related to immoral actions.

However there are times like in basic science research, where the cost involved to get the information is so high that it might not justify the resources that are put into obtaining it. technically this is not the information itself but the investment made in obtaining it. I have a degree in science and support a lot of research but there are times when money needs to be used for other things. NFP does not require a ton of money to use although there are some costs and the need to observe and pay attention. but if NFP required thousands of dollars of equipment a month, I don’t see how that would be a morally neutral situation, if the family had children to feed and could not both pursue NFP and support themselves. But I suppose this is investment in resources rather than information by itself.

 

[SonCatcher]

I understand that. I will admit I have a dog in this fight having got genital herpes from child sexual assault and my husband having gotten the hepatitis C virus from blood transfusion. We have been abstaining for other reasons (the state of my mental health) and are not using contraception, but if we follow the Church then we can’t have sex ever again. I think that is too harsh - well I think it’s too harsh for anyone who has an STD except perhaps for AIDS where prevention is not 100%. but neither one of us asked for this - he got his virus from treatment related to a kidney transplant and I got mine related to abuse. b/c of his transplant we have to be more careful than other people and I’ve been told to use condoms.

I know what people say about anecdotal evidence - but this my life and I can’t get the issues to make sense in theory, either. the person who abused me did not care about how I was doing, or anything like that - that would require empathy he did not have. the hepatitis C virus had not been identified, much less screened for, when my husband got treatment - that meant we were totally clueless until later - which is probably the shape a lot of people are in actually.

The Church recognizes that her teachings are not always easy. The problem of difficult teachings has indeed been with us since the beginning (see John 6). However, she does whatever she can to give pastoral guidance and support to those who have difficulty living all aspects of a Christian life. The best way to get that help is to sincerely ask for it.

 

[silentstar]

The Church recognizes that her teachings are not always easy. The problem of difficult teachings has indeed been with us since the beginning (see John 6). However, she does whatever she can to give pastoral guidance and support to those who have difficulty living all aspects of a Christian life. The best way to get that help is to sincerely ask for it.

ask for it how? I don’t mean that to be hostile. I would not really be comfortable having a long discussion on CAF, besides I imagine there are other threads about these issues - I’m not trying to be insincere, just not happy.

 

[wanner47]

I understand that. I will admit I have a dog in this fight having got genital herpes from child sexual assault and my husband having gotten the hepatitis C virus from blood transfusion. We have been abstaining for other reasons (the state of my mental health) and are not using contraception, but if we follow the Church then we can’t have sex ever again. I think that is too harsh - well I think it’s too harsh for anyone who has an STD except perhaps for AIDS where prevention is not 100%. but neither one of us asked for this - he got his virus from treatment related to a kidney transplant and I got mine related to abuse. b/c of his transplant we have to be more careful than other people and I’ve been told to use condoms.

I know what people say about anecdotal evidence - but this my life and I can’t get the issues to make sense in theory, either. the person who abused me did not care about how I was doing, or anything like that - that would require empathy he did not have. the hepatitis C virus had not been identified, much less screened for, when my husband got treatment - that meant we were totally clueless until later - which is probably the shape a lot of people are in actually.

I’m so sorry for your struggles. You both have a great cross to bear and I wish there was some way both I and the Church could morally make it easier for you.

Both of you are bearing the consequence of another’s sin. That’s extremely unfortunate, and yes it is very unfair to you. But a foundational principle of Catholic theology, one that is sometimes VERY difficult to uphold, is that we may never do evil so that good may result, and the Church has stated that using contraception in any form in anticipation of or during the marital act is a moral evil.

In a situation such as yours, I’d be hesitant even to use condoms since they are not 100% effective; I don’t know if I could bear the thought of passing a disease to my spouse.

I hope and pray that medical science will find effective cures for both of your disorders, and if you don’t mind I’ll pray for you both as well.

 

[SonCatcher]

when it comes at too high a cost - I imagine you would say that the use of information is what determines its morality. I agree most of the time. I assume you would agree that information related to genocide, etc. was related to immoral actions.

However there are times like in basic science research, where the cost involved to get the information is so high that it might not justify the resources that are put into obtaining it. ** technically this is not the information itself but the investment made in obtaining it. ** I have a degree in science and support a lot of research but there are times when money needs to be used for other things. NFP does not require a ton of money to use although there are some costs and the need to observe and pay attention. but if NFP required thousands of dollars of equipment a month, I don’t see how that would be a morally neutral situation, if the family had children to feed and could not both pursue NFP and support themselves. But I suppose this is investment in resources rather than information by itself.

I said information** per se** (following your assertion that information might not be morally neutral). That explicitly excludes the means by which information is obtained.

My example: knowledge of stem cells (even embryonic) and how to use them is neutral. Obtaining animal stem cells for such use is permissible. Obtaining “adult” human stem cells is permissible. Obtaining embryonic human cells is murder and morally reprehensible. The fact of the immorality of the last action does not make the knowledge itself immoral.

BTW: NFP education is available without cost to those who need it and can be practiced without cost.

 

[SonCatcher]

ask for it how? I don’t mean that to be hostile. I would not really be comfortable having a long discussion on CAF, besides I imagine there are other threads about these issues - I’m not trying to be insincere, just not happy.

The best way is to approach your parish priest (or your confessor if they are not the same) and explain your issue. He would be the best first stop in finding the help needed to live through difficult times. Keep in mind that prayer is the most powerful tool we have. In some cases, there are specific organizations that exist primarily to help people with certain issues (e.g. Retrouvaille for couples with marriage troubles or Courage for same-sex attracted persons who need help living celibately).

 

[Rence]

The best way is to approach your parish priest (or your confessor if they are not the same) and explain your issue.

I second this silentstar, please talk to your priest!!

 

[Warrior1979]

Wait, your position is that couples can’t engage in the marital act without serious reasons to do so? Where on earth do you get that idea?

I didn’t get that idea from anywhere…you simply made it up.

The “serious reasons” has to do with deliberately having marital relations during infertile times to avoid having children. That is not my position; that is the Church’s position. It is in black and white in the links I provided. Any person vaguely familiar with NFP is aware of this.

You said the Church disagrees with this statement: “Effectiveness (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the morality of the act.”

I asked for a source for this, and you provided me with several quotes regarding Church teaching on the use of NFP.

What I want is a source saying that the Church disagrees that effectiveness (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the morality of the act. By act, I mean spacing one’s pregnancies. Your claim is that the Church teaches that the effectiveness of the birth control determines its morality. I want proof of your assertion.

The effectiveness issue is not explicit, but implicit, as explained below.

So that the my statements don’t get spun again, I’ll establish a frame of reference. I am specifically limiting my answer in this particular case to the Church-accepted “natural” birth control method. There are two choices to avoid having children when practicing NFP:

First Choice - a couple may abstain (by agreement).

Second Choice - a couple, with and only with serious reason, may time the marital act to coincide with an infertile period.

Once again…not my opinion…that is the Church’s position.

Note the attachment to the second choice. Why did the Church attach conditions to the marital act in this case? Simple. The couple is attempting to limit the procreative aspect of the marital relationship.

Implied in that is effectiveness. If there were no difference in the effectiveness of avoiding children between having marital relations randomly or during the fertile period, and have relations during the infertile period, then there is not a single reason why conditions have to placed on the Second Choice…none. NFP would then simply be “abstaining is the only suitable method for family planning.”