Catholics: Defend NFP using patristics and Tradition

[Warrior1979]

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that a Catholic could then use this argument to justify abortion.

Anyone that wants to justify abortion will find a reason to do so.

 

[wanner47]

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

That was how I understood your comments.

The “serious reasons” has to do with deliberately having marital relations during infertile times to avoid having children. That is not my position; the 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.

I’m sorry, I still don’t understand. The Church does not teach that couples MUST have relations during infertile times in order to postpone pregnancy. The Church teaches that couples MAY avoid intercourse during fertile periods in order to postpone pregnancy.

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

Oh, so it’s your interpretation only. That explains it. Your interpretation is incorrect.

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.

I agree.

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.

So… you’re saying that it’s wrong for the Church to teach that couples should make sure their reasons are just and not selfish?

Why?

You may find this article helpful: Why Doesn’t the Church Just Make a List?

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.”

I agree. However, you’re leaving out one important aspect here.

God designed a woman’s menstrual cycle to act as it does. If He had chosen to, He could have made it so that women were fertile 24/7 like men are. NFP, then, works WITH God’s own design to either achieve or postpone pregnancy, not against it (unlike condoms, the pill, etc.). God created the infertile period of a woman’s cycle; with NFP, neither the woman nor the man take any action to deliberately render the woman infertile. That is done, essentially, by the woman’s own body as designed by God.

I don’t see how it is sinful or wrong to work in accordance with God’s own design for our bodies, especially given that His Church, whom He gave authority to teach, has stated that NFP does not frustrate the marital act and is morally licit when not used for selfish reasons, as we are called to generosity tempered with responsible parenthood.

 

[Warrior1979]

The Church teaches that couples MAY avoid intercourse during fertile periods in order to postpone pregnancy.

Half true. You left out the “serious reasons” part, once again. You must take issue with that point, since you have been avoiding it like the plague.

Oh, so it’s your interpretation only. That explains it. Your interpretation is incorrect.

Your statement is assertive, but lacking in any type of reason.

Note that in the particular case, my argument makes complete sense and does not contradict the Church position. At the most fundamental level, a couple choose to have marital relations during the infertile period to reduce the chance of pregnancy. Once again, in complete agreement with the Church position. The Church places restrictions on that activity because it reduces the change of conception; i.e., reduces the effectiveness. Once again, in complete harmony with the Church’s position.

So… you’re saying that it’s wrong for the Church to teach that couples should make sure their reasons are just and not selfish?

No.

But if having marital relations during infertile periods wasn’t more effective at preventing pregnancy than having marital relations during fertile periods, the attachment of conditions is utterly unnecessary.

I don’t see how it is sinful or wrong to work in accordance with God’s own design for our bodies, especially given that His Church, whom He gave authority to teach, has stated that NFP does not frustrate the marital act and is morally licit when not used for selfish reasons, as we are called to generosity tempered with responsible parenthood.

While it may not frustrate the marital act (assuming you mean no artificial barrier), it absolutely frustrates the chance of conception, hence the attachment of conditions by the Church.

 

[Rence]

Half true. You left out the “serious reasons” part, once again. You must take issue with that point, since you have been avoiding it like the plague.

The Church left discernment of “serious reasons” up to the family though, and those serious reasons can include (but are not limited to) financial, emotional, physical or health restraints. “Serious reasons” are to be prayed on, and consult with the family priest is helpful, but it would not, of course, be determined by our neighbors.

 

[wanner47]

Half true. You left out the “serious reasons” part, once again. You must take issue with that point, since you have been avoiding it like the plague.

Not at all. I was focusing on the aspect of timing intercourse, not the reasons thereof.

Your statement is assertive, but lacking in any type of reason.

As are yours; what a coincidence!

Note that in the particular case, my argument makes complete sense and does not contradict the Church position.

What is your argument? I’m still trying to figure that out.

At the most fundamental level, a couple choose to have marital relations during the infertile period to reduce the chance of pregnancy.

I think you mean “may choose.”

Once again, in complete agreement with the Church position.

Absolutely.

The Church places restrictions on that activity because it reduces the change of conception; i.e., reduces the effectiveness. Once again, in complete harmony with the Church’s position.

No, not quite. The Church doesn’t place restrictions on the activity. It gives guidance as to the criteria for making the choice of how to use the information gathered. Even then She does not give any specific criteria other than stipulating that the decision to postpone pregnancy must be for a “serious” or “just” reason (depending on the translation you use).

But if having marital relations during infertile periods wasn’t more effective at preventing pregnancy than having marital relations during fertile periods, the attachment of conditions is utterly unnecessary.

Your beliefs seem to be predicated on the assumption that it is inherently wrong or immoral to avoid pregnancy. Is this what you believe?

While it may not frustrate the marital act (assuming you mean no artificial barrier), it absolutely frustrates the chance of conception, hence the attachment of conditions by the Church.

It does not frustrate the chance of conception. The only way your position would make sense is if married couples were *required *to have sex every day so as not to avoid a possible chance at conception. By your definition, couples who abstain from sex during the fertile period due to illness are also frustrating the chance of conception. Is that your position?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thanks to all who participated.
Thread closed