Circular NFP reasoning

[AlanFromWichita]

martino:

Alan, either you or I have dramatically misunderstood the point that Mercygate was trying to make! Go back and read what was said.

Will do…

mercygate:

Ever notice, when abstaining during a fertile time because of the need to avoid pregnancy, that the connection betweent the pleasure of our sexuality and its life-giving power are poignantly highlighted?

OK, I read this as the pleasure is connected to the life-giving power. The life-giving power is greatest during the fertile time, so I thought this was saying that so is the pleasure?

My point was that it is during the fertile time that the act has its full life-giving potential, so if a couple abstains during peak fertility, especially when they knows when that is, they are settling for something with less than their full potential. Is that not the case? Of course, I’m trying to reconcile how it is that barrier methods deny the full potential of the act and that’s bad, while NFP does not claim to deny the full potential of the act – but in fact, it does. If we can get this settled, we might have this whole issue “put to bed” so to speak, and if I understand it well enough I’ll jump sides and start helping teach others who don’t understand the NFP v. ABC thing to understand it!

Alan

 

[bear06]

Here we go again. Have you read this article yet? catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp

There is a point when one actually does understand what the Church teaches and still disagrees with it. This has nothing to do with understanding the argument and has everything to do with rejecting it.

West touches on the very question of why are barrier methods and NFP different not just in this article but in some of the articles on his website.

Why do people think God gave us fertility signs in the first place?

 

[mercygate]

itsjustdave1988:

I thought mercygate was speaking of sexual abstinence “making the heart grow fonder” making those times one does not abstain even more amazing. It’s like the prelude to the “honeymoon” all over again. Perhaps I misunderstood as well.

Something like that, Dave. And I speak in strictly personal and experiential terms: not proposing doctrine. It was simply very clear to us during the times we needed to forego the possibility of procreation that God had set up the equation so that the greatest pleasure between husband and wife is associated with the act which, by its very nature, participatates in the procreative love of God.

One reason I think people fail to grasp why the dissociation of the marriage act and the possibility of transmitting life within that act is an abuse is because, as with any divine gift, so much perceived good remains, even the misuse, that we fail to appreciate how much better the divinely ordered use can be.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bear06,

Thanks for the link. Great article!

 

[DVIN_CKS]

martino:

You have a very distorted view of the Church.

Your arguments have now become silly.

Obviously, you didn’t catch my sarcastic tone…I have a dry sense of humor. Sorry if it offended you.

I felt this thread needed a bit of levity. I can see you don’t appreciate my sense of humor. Get over it.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

AlanFromWichita:

The life-giving power is greatest during the fertile time,

My point was that it is during the fertile time that the act has its full life-giving potential, so if a couple abstains during peak fertility, especially when they know when that is, they are settling for something with less than their full potential.

NFP does not claim to deny the full potential of the act – but in fact, it does.

I hope everyone takes a moment to really try and understand what Alan is saying here. He is acknowledging that the fullest potential of marital sex can ONLY be obtained during the fertile periods (when BOTH pleasure and fertility are at their peaks). So regardless of the reasons abstinence occurs during this period, one misses out on the full experience as God has designed it.

I hope I paraphrased your opinion accurately Alan. If not, correct me.

 

[javelin]

AlanFromWichita:

Will do…
OK, I read this as the pleasure is connected to the life-giving power. The life-giving power is greatest during the fertile time, so I thought this was saying that so is the pleasure?

No, I believe mercygate meant something more like having to abstain during fertile times only emphasizes the unity of the act with its life-giving potential. By contrast, artificially contracepting and having relations “any time” promotes no awareness of, or moreso actively denies, the natural connection between the act and its life-giving aspect.

AlanFromWichita:

My point was that it is during the fertile time that the act has its full life-giving potential, so if a couple abstains during peak fertility, especially when they knows when that is, they are settling for something with less than their full potential. Is that not the case?

Um, yes. It sounds like you’re asking if the sex is better when one is actively trying to conceive. I wouldn’t know! :crying:

Hardly a question of morality, though. As far as I have learned, the Church makes no claims about “better”, “best”, “less than”, or “worse”. She simply states that intentionally choosing against life (contracepting) while acting for life (having intercourse) is morally wrong.

AlanFromWichita:

Of course, I’m trying to reconcile how it is that barrier methods deny the full potential of the act and that’s bad, while NFP does not claim to deny the full potential of the act – but in fact, it does.

Nothing is denied when couples have intercourse during an infertile time! Women naturally are infertile at times! The moral error is in intentionally causing infertility yourself! You seem to be arguing against the doctrine that sex is only for procreation. The Church doesn’t teach that doctrine! There is no need to prove it wrong!! IT IS!!!

AlanFromWichita:

If we can get this settled, we might have this whole issue “put to bed” so to speak, and if I understand it well enough I’ll jump sides and start helping teach others who don’t understand the NFP v. ABC thing to understand it!

Alan

Peace,
javelin

 

[javelin]

DVIN CKS:

I hope everyone takes a moment to really try and understand what Alan is saying here. He is acknowledging that the fullest potential of marital sex can ONLY be obtained during the fertile periods (when BOTH pleasure and fertility are at their peaks). So regardless of the reasons abstinence occurs during this period, one misses out on the full experience as God has designed it.

I hope I paraphrased your opinion accurately Alan. If not, correct me.

Yes, I understand what he is saying, and the statement seems entirely correct to me.

But that is not the point.

The Church doesn’t say, “unless the sex is completely fulfilling 100% of its potential, it is immoral”.

This is arguing the negative again. It is far different to say “The act must be open to life” than it is to say “The act must not be accompanied by a choice against life”. The Church teaches the latter, not the former, so arguing against the former will only confuse the real issue (the latter).

Peace,
javelin

 

[Lance_O]

AlanFromWichita:

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?

Because the days of infertility are naturally occuring. God designed the female reproductive cycle that way; YOU are not DOING ANYTING (“taking positive action”) “to render the marital act” infertile.

It’s as simple as that.

 

[Lance_O]

AlanFromWichita:

My point was that it is during the fertile time that the act has its full life-giving potential, so if a couple abstains during peak fertility, especially when they knows when that is, they are settling for something with less than their full potential. Is that not the case?

No. Hopefully this won’t seem like a distinction without a difference, but, it isn’t that an act of intercourse on a day of fertility has more ‘life-giving potential,’ it is simply more likely to achieve a pregnancy than an act of intercouse on a day of infertility. (assuming this is an NFP couple or a couple that does not use any method whatsoever.)

A couple of this nature is not settling for anything less when they have intercourse on days of infertility because BOTH elements that are necessary for a ‘licit’ act of intercourse are present–unitive and procreative(–they are not actively DOING anything to alter the life-giving potential that that act naturally posesses).

Of course, I’m trying to reconcile how it is that barrier methods deny the full potential of the act and that’s bad, while NFP does not claim to deny the full potential of the act – but in fact, it does.

NFP itself, when used with the correct mentality and intent, CAN’T deny the full potential of the act because it isn’t NFP that is making the woman infertile (as with other methods). It is God’s naturally existing and occuring cycle of fertility and infertility.

If we can get this settled, we might have this whole issue “put to bed” so to speak, and if I understand it well enough I’ll jump sides and start helping teach others who don’t understand the NFP v. ABC thing to understand it!

ahhhh, my dream come true :yup:

 

[martino]

DVIN CKS:

Obviously, you didn’t catch my sarcastic tone…I have a dry sense of humor. Sorry if it offended you.

I felt this thread needed a bit of levity. I can see you don’t appreciate my sense of humor. Get over it.

I had no problem detecting your sarcastic tone; its a mistake to equate sarcasm and mere humor. If I felt you were only being humorous I wouldn’t have bothered to respond. The problem is that you wanted to make a point (using sarcasm, not humor). Your view of the Church has been betrayed by your recent posts. Nobody accuses the Church simply for the sake of humor, you wanted to make a point, and the point was well taken. If you would say that you were not trying to make a point and only wanted to make us laugh, what is so funny about;"here is a silly thought…if contraception is "disordering the procreative and unitive aspects of marital sex, shouldn’t people who use contraception be labeld “contracep-tics” and be viewed by the church as people who are “sexually disordered” since they are not following the “natural law’?”
Call me crazy but it you sound somewhat bitter to me.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Lance O:

A couple of this nature is not settling for anything less when they have intercourse on days of infertility…

NFP itself, when used with the correct mentality and intent, CAN’T deny the full potential of the act because it isn’t NFP that is making the woman infertile (as with other methods). It is God’s naturally existing and occuring cycle of fertility and infertility.

A woman would certainly be settling for something less if she only had intercourse during the infertile period of her cycle. She would be missing out on the full potential of unitive love since, as God designed things, she would not only be most fertile, but she would also be at her height of arrousal. If a woman is limited to infertile periods only for marital relations, then she’s being cheated out of her God given sexual potential.

This is why NFP CAN and DOES deny the full potential of the act – at least to the woman. Bottom line…the only time a woman can enjoy sex at her highest state of arrousal is if she is willing to become pregnant.

Perhaps the church recognized this inequality and that is why she doesn’t recommend NFP unless there is a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy. Just my guess.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

martino:

Call me crazy but it you sound somewhat bitter to me.

You’re crazy. I have no bitterness towards the church. Do I have issues with this one teaching? Yes. Does it help me to take an argument to the “ridiculous extreme” as I did in my “silly thought” so that I can regain some sort of perspective? Yes. If you’re so serious that you couldn’t see that, then that is not my issue. Next time I’ll be sure to end my musings with “just kidding” or preface them with “don’t take this literally”. I thought beginning the post with “here is a silly thought” (obviously not meant to be taken seriously), would have sufficed. Obviously I need to be more clear.

 

[bear06]

DVIN CKS:

A woman would certainly be settling for something less if she only had intercourse during the infertile period of her cycle. She would be missing out on the full potential of unitive love since, as God designed things, she would not only be most fertile, but she would also be at her height of arrousal. If a woman is limited to infertile periods only for marital relations, then she’s being cheated out of her God given sexual potential.

This is why NFP CAN and DOES deny the full potential of the act – at least to the woman. Bottom line…the only time a woman can enjoy sex at her highest state of arrousal is if she is willing to become pregnant.

Perhaps the church recognized this inequality and that is why she doesn’t recommend NFP unless there is a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy. Just my guess.

Now this is just plain silly! In my 14 years of marriage, I can’t remember once thinking “oh, I must be ovulating because that was better than all the rest of the times.” I’ll concede that the drive might be higher during these times (although I’ve only noticed that when we had to use NFP and part of that time I probably wasn’t fertile - I’m sure that’s the “forbidden fruit” factor) but I’d have to say that “a great time is had by all” no matter when it is, at least in this house. Yes, that probably was TMI (too much info) but I’d hazard to say that this logic was goofy.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

AlanFromWichita:

Of course, I’m trying to reconcile how it is that barrier methods deny the full potential of the act and that’s bad, while NFP does not claim to deny the full potential of the act – but in fact, it does. If we can get this settled, we might have this whole issue “put to bed” so to speak, and if I understand it well enough I’ll jump sides and start helping teach others who don’t understand the NFP v. ABC thing to understand it!

NFP does not deny the full reality of the act.
When using contraception when you participate in the act you deny one of its characteristics as it is designed.
When using NFP to avoid and you abstain you have not denied a characteristic of the act but have affirmed it. When you participate in the act at an infertile time and have not changed the act you also affirm the reality as God designed it.

 

[javelin]

bear06:

Now this is just plain silly!

Actually, it isn’t silly at all. Probably my wife’s A#1 frustration with NFP is precisely this point. When she wants to, we can’t if we need to avoid pregnancy. Contrast that with the typical male who is aroused at the drop of a pin and the difference is substantial. Of course, if she was on contraceptives to make her unnaturally infertile, she may never want to! The assumption that the chemicals negate the fertility without affecting the natural desire is very presuptious.

Yes, there is jealousy involved here. Thus some of the strong emotion and reservation about the method. The argument “I’m sure God doesn’t want me to enjoy it any less than you!!” is a common sentiment. Of course this equates desire with fullfillment, but there probably is a good correlation there that can be assumed, especially when one enters into it with the preconceived notion that the enjoyment may be less than it could be.

Just my :twocents: on that point, but it still doesn’t address the key issue, which is any disagreement with what the Church actually teaches, not what some assume or fear the Church teaches.

Peace,
javelin

 

[CatholicMatthew]

The sexual act is unique not because of pleasure…if that were so then only pleasurable sex would be meaningful or could be better with someone else.

The unitive falls from this the way it was designed.
I give you my seed…take it.
I accept your seed.
May our seeds be joined (united) and form something that is both of us…not just me and not just you but us.

It is the mutual giving and receiving of the total self and receiving of total self inside of procreation…not to say that procreation has to occur for the full meaning but just the fullfillment of meaning. Artificially sterile sex denies this reality by eliminating the forward looking destination of procreation. Even if it is never realized as long as it respects that end then it is life-giving and unitive.

This is how we are unique amongst all creation…we participate in what God does —creating new life. This is the difference between pro-life and anti-abortion.

Under the mercy,

Matthew

 

[DVIN_CKS]

bear06,
Every woman is different so I’m not going to try and say that ALL women have the same experience. But it would certainly make sense that God would design the sexes to want to have sex when the urge was the highest and fertility the greatest. Hence, “go forth and multiply”.

Personally, I have found that I’m definetly more “in the mood” when I’m ovulating. For women with low sex drives, this is a pretty important ‘detail’ that shouldn’t be overlooked in a marriage. I think what you are doing is confusing the act itself with the *desire for * the act. If you have a high sex drive, you may not notice much difference at all during the month.

 

[bear06]

Bottom line…the only time a woman can enjoy sex at her highest state of arrousal is if she is willing to become pregnant.

This still doesn’t make sense to me. Drive is one thing, pleasure is another. Just because the drive may be higher, doesn’t mean the pleasure is.

I was just reading an article on menopause the other day and it was talking about how many woman actually have more pleasure after menopause due to higher levels of testosterone. I didn’t know that and I’m assuming it is medically sound but it could be wrong. This would then blow your theory right out of the water.

There are a lot of things that go into the “pleasure” aspect of the marital embrace that have absolutely nothing to do with being fertile. I already said that I do concede that God does increase the drive during those times. I just do not agree with the above quote.

 

[bear06]

javelin:

Actually, it isn’t silly at all. Probably my wife’s A#1 frustration with NFP is precisely this point. When she wants to, we can’t if we need to avoid pregnancy. Contrast that with the typical male who is aroused at the drop of a pin and the difference is substantial. Of course, if she was on contraceptives to make her unnaturally infertile, she may never want to! The assumption that the chemicals negate the fertility without affecting the natural desire is very presuptious.

Yes, there is jealousy involved here. Thus some of the strong emotion and reservation about the method. The argument “I’m sure God doesn’t want me to enjoy it any less than you!!” is a common sentiment. Of course this equates desire with fullfillment, but there probably is a good correlation there that can be assumed, especially when one enters into it with the preconceived notion that the enjoyment may be less than it could be.

Just my :twocents: on that point, but it still doesn’t address the key issue, which is any disagreement with what the Church actually teaches, not what some assume or fear the Church teaches.

Peace,
javelin

OK, let’s all go back our engagement period. I don’t know about all of you but I wasn’t just looking forward to the wedding night when I was ovulating. This is why it’s important to keep the romance alive. For women, it’s not just about hormones. Being romanced is a big part of it. If it was all about hormones, feeling good, etc. nobody would ever enter into the marital embrace when they were pregnant, post-menopausal, etc.

While everybody goes through the doldrums from time to time, when a woman is ovulating shouldn’t be the only time she desires to have sex! If this is the case, I’d just have to guess that there are some emotion and spiritual needs that are not being met.

This is why the theology of the body is so great! It makes you keenly aware of the awesomeness of the marital union. It’s only when we take it for granted that we fall into the doldrums.

I can see why it would be even harder to abstain during the fertile times if that were the only time you’d want to have sex.