Circular NFP reasoning

[AlanFromWichita]

DVIN CKS:

NFP could certainly fall under the first scenario above that I have in bold. A couple must decide before the act takes place that they must abstain thus rendering procreation impossible. You certainly can’t procreate if you practice abstinance.

OMG! Jinx!:whacky:

We seem to think very much alike!

We couldn’t have been more synchronized if we had planned it!

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Princess_Abby:

Alan,
Out of curiosity, what is it you hope to gain from this thread? At least at this point?

For one, I crave resolution. I hate open ended issues.

Second, if y’all can convince me the Church isn’t just making up arbitrary fluff to justify some preconceived notion, I will grow in respect for her teachings and make give up, at least in part, second guessing her.

Third, it’s largely academic because neither I nor any of my friends have anything riding on this.

I feel that you, on the other hand, seem convinced that you might be the one person to “uncover” the purported error of Church teaching.

If there is an error, somebody has to do it, and why should I shrink from that calling? If there is not an error, the Church’s publications I’ve read so far, plus all these posts, have partially but not completely explained it.

You’ve talked in previous posts about being the “one” to stand against “many.” We aren’t just talking about a handful of people here tossing around ideas, we’re talking about the wisdom infused by the Holy Spirit to the Holy Mother Church for the last 2,000 years of tradition!

Which is why I’m hoping there really is a reasonable explanation hiding somewhere underneath the BS (Bureaucratic Speak). I’d hate to think that many people were deceived for that long of time.

There is no error possible. Jesus instituted this Church and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. If God HIMSELF put together the magisterium, how is it that you deign to even consider your intellect beyond that of God’s? I’m very curious.

Because I don’t buy that argument either. If we can clear up the NFP controversy, that will remove that as a weapon for my carnal mind to use against my spirit’s acceptance of infallibility. So far what I believe about infallibility is that the Church’s teachings are infallible because she infallibly said that they were.

The Church is not an arbitrary, manipulative institution.

Whether she is arbitrary remains to be seen. That she is manipulative is unquestionable.

Why do you object to NFP being used for only just reasons? Why do you believe it’s moral to chemically alter our reproductive systems?

I don’t object, and I didn’t say it’s moral to chemically alter our reproductive systems.

Why do you believe it’s moral to erect contraceptive barriers between spouses?

Because it is not considered immoral to artificially erect the “naturally contraceptive” barrier of timing infertility. I don’t get the part where morality is based on one being natural and the other artificial. Artificial penicillin substitutes can save lives. Natural arsenic can take them.

What exactly DO you believe, if it clearly isn’t what the Church teaches?

Good question. I’m actually trying to figure that out. Right now I believe that either barrier methods are not intrinsically immoral, or NFP for pregnancy prevention is.

I teach my children abstinence, and they are learning NFP in Catholic school.

Why call oneself Catholic if we do not believe the basic catechesis? Truly, why align oneself with that which one does not believe?

That’s also a good question. I loved the Church so much and worked so hard for her, and then got rejected so soundly, that I must have bettered wife syndrome. I’m getting better, though, I think.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Princess_Abby:

Questioning is fine, but one must make a concerted effort to find one’s answers and truly listen to what those answers might be. I’ve reccommended both documents and books to you, but your response was that you are too slow of a reader and that you have many other books to read first…

I find that a poor excuse for someone who truly thirsts for the truth. Just MHO.

I am making a concerted effort, but I happen to be a little more anal-retentive about explanations having to be exact than most people. I used to design and test computer and mechanical equipment that controlled when bombs were dropped out of B-52 aircraft. You might say that I insist things match perfectly on paper, because if they don’t you might get by with one unit working properly but the next one might not.

I do truly thirst for truth, but I am so interested in so many things that I typically do not stay with something long enough to read a book. I have read several articles that posters have recommended to me, and I plan to reread Humanae Vitae.

Just think, if I ever “get it” don’t you want to be part of the team that got it through my thick skull? Maybe that’s the big “I” syndrome, but you do seem interested in whether I understand. Also when we get done here maybe we will both be super effective apologists on this particular issue. I suppose if people quit posting to me before I “get it” I’ll let it drop and not start another thread.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Princess_Abby:

Alan often seems to be utterly confused on this thread, despite the fact we’re nearing 200 posts of explanation.

Dear Abby,

There has been progress! I’m thinking if I can break away from posting long enough, I might just gather and summarize what I’ve learned so far and what I think still needs to be resolved and post it on a web site.

So far I am giving NFP v ABC arguments the benefit of the doubt, in that I am still digging to find out whether they actually hold water. I don’t want it to be on the basis that I don’t understand the argument. If I finally understand completely and still don’t buy it, then I guess we’ll have to quit.

Alan

 

[princz23]

Continue to think the NFP teaching by the church is circular if you like. Think whatever you want to think, just know that those of us who have embraced this method after trying barrier methods, which were against church teaching, are blessed within our marriage in ways unimaginable. I do not believe this is a fluke.

Frankly, I believe I will quit reading this thread as it is going nowhere. I do not need logical reasoning to tell me that NFP is working beautifully for my husband and I. I may be praying for more children, someday, but I respect my husband’s desire to space our children further apart. The church teaches that for either of us to be selfish in our reasons to either conceive or not conceive, without the feelings of the other taken into consideration, is sinful.

Part of the reason that contraception of any kind harms a marriage is that it puts off conversation about if and why to abstain during times of fertility. When using NFP, you are fully aware of those times. If you are using barrier methods only, you are not. If you are combining the two, what is the point of using the condom, which has a high failure rate, during times of fertility? If you really want/need to prevent pregnancy, it seems like one of both parties are being selfish by not being able to abstain. Again, the act of being selfish, is sinful. If you use NFP and you are not fertile, why do you need a condom?

The point is this, by using ABC, even condoms, you put off converation about when or if you are going to have a baby or another baby. This is definitely trying to cut God out of your life.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

when did the topic of condom use come into play??? Did I miss something? I didn’t think we were singling out any one particular form of ABC.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Alan…my husband and you think very much a like. He thirsts for logic behind the teachings. He agrees that this teaching is more filler than easy to follow logic. One is left scratching their head. He understands, as do I, how you can see the circular logic. You are not alone brother (although many on this thread make you feel that way).

 

[DVIN_CKS]

martino:

If we have legitimate reasons to limit or space our children then we may do so but only through natural means. Always remember that “the end never justifies the means!”

A correction is needed here…don’t you mean to say “the end never justifies the ARTIFICIAL means!” You must be specific because both NFP and ABC are means. The end - which in this case is to avoid pregnancy, never justifies ANY means – according to the Catholic Church.

 

[princz23]

If you have been here for the entire thread and read other threads, you would know that Alan does distinguish barrier methods from forms of contraception that are abortifacient. To be clear about the ABC, I thought it would be prudent to clarify the type!

By the way, I have yet to unsubscribe, a glutton for punishment, I guess.

 

[bear06]

I’ve been re-reading my CCC and have to say that it sounds like one could apply NFP to the following statement: “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…”

You might want to read all of the thread “Moral Dilemma” because some of this was covered here by Javelin’s priests explanation. The “Moral Dilemma” thread was a precurser to this one.

NFP is not an action it’s an inaction.

BTW, I’m still curious DVIN CKS to know which Church documents you find Church have you read that are philosophically and theologically weak in your opinion?

 

[bear06]

BTW, nearly every post I’ve seen on the AAA forum on this topic refers to the Christopher West book. I thought his article I linked to was good but I have an idea (and no, I haven’t had the time to read it yet but my husband has taught me a lot what he’s learned from it) that it goes far more in depth into the topic than the article did. At least, this is what my husband tells me.

Maybe we should all give it a read. It might save an infinite amount of time. He must do a bang up job and explain every argument you can think of since so many apologists refer to this book.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

princz23:

By the way, I have yet to unsubscribe, a glutton for punishment, I guess.

Dear Jennifer,

Welcome back. Actually I do not subscribe to any threads because I could not handle all that email. That also explains why I sometimes disappear from a thread; if it scrolls down too far and/or I forgot I’d posted in it, I might not check it.

In my mind the conversation is going somewhere. I have reduced my attack on NFP propaganda (the attack was not on NFP itself) and my objections are much more focused now. So it has been good for me. Soon I hope to summarize the starting position, where we’ve moved, and what’s left to get a map of this thing but I can’t seem to resist spending all my time responding reactively. I do appreciate all the good comments and advice. At first I guess I really didn’t want to hear it, but I’ve learned since then.

The point is this, by using ABC, even condoms, you put off converation about when or if you are going to have a baby or another baby. This is definitely trying to cut God out of your life.

My wife and I abstained for about 8 months once to avoid conception for medical reasons. For a short while after that we used some ABC. Throughout the whole time we had discussions about everything including when to have a baby. I think it’s great if the method of NFP brings about these discussions, and several have pointed out how blessed they believe they’ve been because of NFP. That’s all good, and I don’t wish to dissuade anybody from using it.

As I have pointed out, my “circular reasoning” claim has either mutated or gone away completely; we have moved on from the “effectiveness” v “open to life” argument I originally had, to “why can’t the two purposes be separated”

Alan

 

[CatholicMatthew]

DVIN CKS:

A correction is needed here…don’t you mean to say “the end never justifies the ARTIFICIAL means!” You must be specific because both NFP and ABC are means. The end - which in this case is to avoid pregnancy, never justifies ANY means – according to the Catholic Church.

Sorry, I can’t let this get by. I don’t have much time this morning to respond but this I can’t stand for. THE END OF AVOIDING PREGNANCY IS IRRELEVANT TO THE MORALITY OF CONTRACEPTION. NFP IS NOT CONTRACEPTION. IT IS A SEPERATE TECHNOLOGY TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE SAME TEACHING.

Okay, I feel better. The ends never justify the means. However, that doesn’t mean that the means aren’t justified…just not by the ends themselves.

Under the mercy,

Matthew

Sorry about the yelling. I just logic abuse.

 

[martino]

DVIN CKS:

A correction is needed here…don’t you mean to say “the end never justifies the ARTIFICIAL means!” You must be specific because both NFP and ABC are means. The end - which in this case is to avoid pregnancy, never justifies ANY means – according to the Catholic Church.

Actually there was no need for correction because as long as your reasons are legitimate the natural means used to avoid pregnancy is licit. Conversely, no matter what your reasons, artificial contraception remains gravely sinful.

So when I say, “the ends never justififes the mean”, I am saying that we can never commit evil, even to bring about a good result. So even if it has been determined that is would be “good” for a married couple to avoid pregnancy, they can never use sinful means to achieve this end. Using NFP the means would not be sinful (assuming it is legitimate) so the phrase, “the ends never justifies the means” would not even apply.

 

[martino]

AlanFromWichita:

What I didn’t understand is what new information that brought to the table. Since I saw DVIN CKS citing the same objections earlier as I had, I apparently thought (s)he had found the answer to those objections. Now I noticed that the part you quoted from me was in post #26, well before I conceded my own “circular reasoning” issue to the worldly way NFP is promoted as opposed to an inherent flaw with NFP teaching itself. Your question apparently answered something for DVIN CKS, but I had already gotten that.

I still have the big question of why the two purposes can’t be separated, because if that were really true anybody sterile would have to be celibate. The objection to that, of course, is that there was no act that caused the sterility, therefore no sin. If you’re strategically timing the sex act, on purpose, using scientific observation, to avoid children then how is that not taking positive action to render the marital act unfertile?
Alan

Alan, sorry for confusing you, I obviously didnt read through all the posts before I jumped in!

Also, could you please clarify this statement: I still have the big question of why the two purposes can’t be separated, because if that were really true anybody sterile would have to be celibate."

I know that I can be slow but I am just not following you. Which two purposes are you even refering to? You still seem to think that not having sex is a sin, which is baffling me! You say it is sinful to “strategically” not have sex. So according to that you were sinning as you wrote that post unless you were having sex at the same time, which I hope is not the case!

 

[DVIN_CKS]

CatholicMatthew:

THE END OF AVOIDING PREGNANCY IS IRRELEVANT TO THE MORALITY OF CONTRACEPTION. ** NFP IS NOT CONTRACEPTION. IT IS A SEPERATE TECHNOLOGY ** TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE SAME TEACHING.

As Alan would say, “Potato/ Pothato”.

Abstaining is an ACTION. My dictionary defines it as: Abstinence: The act or practice of refraining from indulging an appetite.

My kids pester me to make decisions on topics all day long that I have to give thought to before responding. I tell them I haven’t decided what the outcome will be yet. For me…deciding not to decide at the moment, is a decision. I see the same to be true for acting out our sexual impulses. Not to act on those impulses is, in and of itself, an act.

So, IMO when a couple chooses to abstain from sex to avoid pregnancy this is the action (i.e. means) taken to accomplish their objective.

If someone thinks this is skewed logic…help me out to understand it differently.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

martino:

I am saying that we can never commit evil, even to bring about a good result. So even if it has been determined that is would be “good” for a married couple to avoid pregnancy, …

Yes, but the church does’t teach that it is “good” to avoid pregnancy. They want us all to be open to pregnancy ALWAYS.

Yes, they want us to be responsible parents, but we must always be open to life, right?

 

[martino]

DVIN CKS:

Yes, but the church does’t teach that it is “good” to avoid pregnancy. They want us all to be open to pregnancy ALWAYS.

Yes, they want us to be responsible parents, but we must always be open to life, right?

I should have been more clear; the Church does teach that if for grave reasons, it is “not evil” for couples to avoid pregnancy at a particular time. So whether or not it is a “good” thing to avoid pregnancy at a time when it would cause serious problems for a couple, it is still “not evil” and that is the key. I said earlier that we cannot do “evil” even to bring about good. So in my example, evil is not being done, but if the couple were to us ABC then they would be doing evil to bring about good.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

bear06:

BTW, I’m still curious DVIN CKS to know which Church documents you find Church have you read that are philosophically and theologically weak in your opinion?

Humane Vitae for one. The Pope’s general reflections on marriage, sex, parenthood and morality…I don’t have a problem with. But the weakness I find is in some paragraphs among his reflections where he speaks about the reproductive purpose of sexual intercourse and the emotional, physical, and psychological aspects that express a couple’s love. This “inseparable connection” that he makes is what doesn’t seem clear to me from the standpoint that when the two aspects are separated, what changes between the couple’s unitive love? The Pope uses the phrase “total reciprocal self-giving”. So, this self-giving is somehow lessened if the procreative purpose is left out of the union? I just don’t see how deliberately blocking the possibility of procreation violates the act’s meaning. Yes, the “order of the act” has been displaced, but so what? Personally speaking, I do not feel like the unitive love that my husband and I share has been weakened when we have used ABC. Is the Pope speaking on a more spiritual level? Is that what I’m missing? Maybe my problem is with all the “philosophical vocabulary” that the Pope uses. Perhaps the book your husband has recommended will be a better read for me.

This is just how I see it. I do not want to start a discussion debating HV point by point. But since you keep insisting that I give you an example of a document that I don’t feel has helped bring closure on this topic, now you have it.

 

[martino]

DVIN CKS “I just don’t see how deliberately blocking the possibility of procreation violates the act’s meaning. Yes, the “order of the act” has been displaced, but so what?”

If the meaning of the act is tied to its life giving aspect, then how could you deliberately block the life giving aspect without violating its meaning?

If the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual relations can be serparated; do you support artificial insemination or en vitro fertilization? What about surrogate mothers?

“‘Yes, the “order of the act” has been displaced, but so what?’”
Ok then what about masterbation or sex outside marriage, how do you feel about those? As soon as you say “so what” to the importance of “natural order” then you invite all kinds of things.