Circular NFP reasoning

[javelin]

DVIN CKS:

javelin…you make the assumption that Alan doesn’t know what the church teaches. I think that is incorrect. From reading through his posts, he understands exactly where the church stands. I think the only difference is that he is coming to this discussion without any preconceived ideas of what is considered morally evil and what isn’t. I could be wrong…Alan will have to correct me. I don’t want to speak for him, but feel that from a purely logical standpoint, he’s made some very insightful comments (at least for me anyway).

I believe my assumption is correct, but I concede that I am certainly not foolproof, nor do I infallibly speak for the Church. I, too, have read through his posts, and believe that he misunderstands the Church’s position. If you agree with him, perhaps you do as well. Perhaps I am incorrect and you can show me my error.

The current course of this discussion seems very off-base to me for this reason:

You and Alan seem to be using the degree of “openness to life” as the measuring stick of morality in sexual relations, arguing that sex during infertile times and barrier ABC are morally equivalent because they have the same “openness to life”. Is that characterization incorrect?

That line of reasoning is inherently flawed because it is NOT the sole foundation upon which the Church bases her teaching on the immorality of ABC. If you look at the quote I supplied in my previous post, it is there that you will see what the Church actually teaches. I maintain that the Church teaches it is the act of positive denial of the natural outcome of the sexual union that is immoral. By using contraceptives, one is actively denying the possibility of life. By engaging in intercourse when infertile, there is no positive action to deny conception or fertility; the infertility happens naturally.

If you disagree, then I think the best place to start would be discussing what we think the Church actually teaches, because arguing for or against something is futile if the “something” is not clearly defined. That is what I believe is happening here, which is why this discussion seems to be going in circles.

What do you think?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Lance_O]

Hi Alan, I feel that these quotes from you are somewhat repeats from before, which I addressed in #s 229 & 230 with no reply. (except for ‘out there’ ones from dvnchks) Please read them and comment. I will also try again here.

AlanFromWichita:

Then you must be basing your argument on something other than the intentional separation of unitive and procreative functions. Abstinence per se doesn’t do that, but periodic abstinence, strategically timed with scientifically derived strategy, does that, specifically and intentionally.

First of all, how is abstinence in general different from periodic abstinence? Next of all, abstinence (either in general or periodically) CAN’T separate the unitive and procreative because without sex you don’t have EITHER the unitive OR the procreative. Also, let’s keep in mind that the Church doesn’t see anything wrong with abstinence–presumably for this very reason.

If it didn’t, it couldn’t claim such a high “success” rate.

This doesn’t have anything to do with it since we’ve already established that the success rate of the method (like the level of pleasure of the sex) has nothing to do with the morality of the method. Besides that, I thought that everyone already knew and agreed that abstinence is the best way to not get pregnant (including the Church-who, again, doesn’t have a problem with abstinence)(but you, Alan, kind of seem to!).

How is NFP for conception prevention not at odds with the Church teaching that the unitive and procreative function must never be separated?

Please see above and posts # 229 & 230.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

martino:

So “not having sex” during feritile periods is the same or worse than “having sex with barriers”?

Correct. Under both methods (abstinence and ABC), the “procreative aspect” of the marital act is not 100% intact. The egg is either missing in action, or the sperm is MIA.

According to your use of percentages the couple that uses artificial contraception is actually better off than the couple that abstains from sex.

Correct, from a strictly mathematical standpoint.

What is the woman withholding from her husband during the sex act? I am a little lost on this one.

Her egg. Same would be said of a man with a vesectomy. He is withholding his sperm. If they would have had sex the week before when she was fertile, her egg would have been “in the game” along with the sperm and the procreative aspect of the marital act would have been 100% represented.

When the NFP couple does engage in sex, they give each other all that they have, withholding nothing…if you don’t agree with this you’re going to have to explain to me what the woman or the man is withholding during the sex act.

From a strictly physiological point of view, if either spouse is withholding the true essence of their sexuality (i.e. either sperm or egg are not present) then one cannot make the claim that the FULL procreative potential of the marital embrace is intact.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

martino:

So “not having sex” during feritile periods is the same or worse than “having sex with barriers”?

I would phrase it differently: Having sex during the infertile period of a woman’s cycle is the same as having sex with barriers. Under each of these scenarios, the “procreative aspect” of the marital act is not 100% intact. The egg is either missing in action, or the sperm is MIA.

According to your use of percentages the couple that uses artificial contraception is actually better off than the couple that abstains from sex.

Correct, from a strictly mathematical standpoint.

What is the woman withholding from her husband during the sex act? I am a little lost on this one.

Her egg. Same would be said of a man with a vesectomy. He is withholding his sperm. If they would have had sex the week before when she was fertile, her egg would have been “in the game” along with the sperm and the procreative aspect of the marital act would have been 100% represented.

When the NFP couple does engage in sex, they give each other all that they have, withholding nothing…if you don’t agree with this you’re going to have to explain to me what the woman or the man is withholding during the sex act.

From a strictly physiological point of view, if either spouse is withholding the true essence of their sexuality (i.e. either sperm or egg are not present) then one cannot make the claim that the FULL procreative potential of the marital embrace is intact.

 

[Lance_O]

DVIN CKS:

I would phrase it differently: Having sex during the infertile period of a woman’s cycle is the same as having sex with barriers. Under each of these scenarios, the “procreative aspect” of the marital act is not 100% intact. The egg is either missing in action, or the sperm is MIA.

The definition of having the procreative aspect of sex present is not that both the sperm and egg need to be present. Javelin (and many others) have shown this using the very words of the Church. In order for the procreative aspect to be intact, the couple can not take any positive, deliberate action to inhibit their fertility (sperm and/or egg) that would separate the two (procreative from the unitive).

Furthermore, it has also already been shown (by the Church and many posters on this thread) that abstinence on days of fertility and/or intercourse on days of infertility (NFP, in essence) does not fit that description.

It does not fit the description because of what abstinence is. Abstinence is an absence, or lack of, sex. In order to have EITHER the procreative OR the unitive you HAVE TO HAVE SEX! Abstinence can not separate things which are not present.

Intercourse on days of infertility also doesn’t separate the procreative from the unitive because the couple is not taking positive, deliberate action to inhibit their fertility. Their fertility is not being affected by the fact that they are having intercourse on that day of natural infertility—they have also not done anything else to alter their fertility. It is impossible to alter your naturally occuring cycles of fertility and infertility while using NFP, using selective intercourse. (Selecting days of infertility or fertility for intercourse depending on your reproductive goals)–YOUR FERTILITY IS NOT AFFECTED BY WHEN THE SEX HAPPENS OR DOESN’T HAPPEN!!!

(also, see posts 229, 230, and 262)

 

[javelin]

Yes, LanceO, we are at the same place.

DVIN CKS, I cannot, and do not intend to deny the truth of your logic. From where you start to where you end, the logic is fine. It is simply that I disagree with where you star – the premise of your disagreement.

When understood properly, the Church’s position is not circular, and not illogical. I used to believe that it was, but since then have come to a proper understanding (I think ) of the Church’s actual teaching, and it makes sense. I hope it can for you and Alan so that you may embrace it both intellectually and with assent of faith.

Peace,
javelin

 

[bear06]

.

The NFP couple are STILL not open to fertilization because they are now having marital sex during an infertile period

.

This is wrong!!! Since we all know that NFP isn’t foolproof, the NFP couple IS open to life because they realize that even though they think there is little chance to conceive, they know there is always the possibility and they accept this possibility lovingly (at least if they are using NFP according to Church teachings!).

There are more than just one argument to why NFP is not instrinsically evil and the barrier method is. You can’t just pin it down to one an say “ah ha!” They work together. However, just for the one argument on hand, The key here is in one of the last posts and in some of the posts in the beginnings of this conversation. The barrier methods seeks to cheat what God has created. NFP works with what God has created.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

bear06:

. .

Since we all know that NFP isn’t foolproof, the NFP couple IS open to life because they realize that even though they think there is little chance to conceive, they know there is always the possibility and they accept this possibility lovingly (at least if they are using NFP according to Church teachings!).

I could apply this same statement to a couple using ABC: “The ABC couple IS open to life because they realize that even though they think there is little chance to conceive, they know there is always the possibility and they accept this possibility lovingly.”

I may use ABC, but that doesn’t mean my husband and I wouldn’t accept a child if our method somehow failed. We accept this possibility lovingly also.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

–YOUR FERTILITY IS NOT AFFECTED BY WHEN THE SEX HAPPENS OR DOESN’T HAPPEN!!!

…but your ability to procreate is.

CCC 2370: "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".

Abstinence IS an action (look it up in the dictionary) and it is something you do “in anticipation of the conjugal act”.

 

[princz23]

Abstinence IS an action (look it up in the dictionary) and it is something you do “in anticipation of the conjugal act”.

---

By using the above definition, NFP couples are not really abstaining. You see, when you know your cycle and you have significant reason to postpone conception, you know when to not “anticipate” the marital union. You know when you can “anticipate” it as well. When you can “anticipate” the conjugal act, there is little chance of procreation, so to abstain during this time (tired, etc.) would not be against church teaching either. I think you just helped to prove, logically, what you seem so determined to disprove with logic.

 

[Lance_O]

DVIN CKS:

…but your ability to procreate is.
CCC 2370: "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".
Abstinence IS an action (look it up in the dictionary) and it is something you do “in anticipation of the conjugal act”.

First of all, I believe that “in anticipation of the conjugal act” is referring to things involved in foreplay, oral sex, for example…

Next of all, even if abstinence is an “action” (which I would personally beg to differ on) it is NOT an action that would fit the description for separating the unitive from the procreative in an act of intercourse. …there is no intercourse.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Alan,

I propose that having sex only when not fertile does not preserve the union of the two functions

You are arguing against a teaching that Humanae Vitae does not assert. HV states that the “intrinsic” relationship of each marital act to procreation must be retained. You fail to see or admit there’s a distinction made by the word “instrinsic.” For example, one can have sex without possibility of procreation (e.g., post-menapausal, natural sterility, etc.) That’s not against the doctrine of the Church. Why? The marital acts still retain their intrinsic relationship to procreation. What does instrinsic mean? It is the essence or nature of the act. What prevents procreation? Is it the essence or nature of human actions, or is it the natural lack of release of ovum or sperm? Can impotent men have sex? Can post-menapausal women? Yes.

One must look at each and every marital act. Has either couple done something so as to sever the *intrinsic *relationship (cf. HV, 10) between the marital act and procreation. With NFP the answer is no. Yes, the marital acts are not procreative. But that’s not the issue. The issue is the instrinsic relationship of the marital act to its purpose. Not the relationship of the act to its purpose, but the *intrinsic *relationship. That’s why HV used the word it uses. Nothing done by the NFP practicing couple make any marital act instrinsically (by its very nature) opposed to procreation. On the contrary, what keeps procreation from happening is due to a natural consequence, the natural lack of available ovum.

I submit you are arguing against a caricature of Catholic moral theology.

 

[javelin]

Thank you, Dave. Well put. I agree completely that it seems the argument is being made against something that is not taught.

Peace,
javelin

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Lance O:

In order for the procreative aspect to be intact, the couple can not take any positive, deliberate action to inhibit their fertility (sperm and/or egg) that would separate the two (procreative from the unitive).

Furthermore, it has also already been shown (by the Church and many posters on this thread) that abstinence on days of fertility and/or intercourse on days of infertility (NFP, in essence) does not fit that description.

I get what you’re saying…basically, we are not allowed to alter our fertility in anyway, right? I can see how birth control pills, tubals, and vasectomies, and spermacides would alter one’s natural fertility as God gave it to us. However…I’m not convinced - yet - that condoms or diaphrams would fall under the same classification. Both these barrier methods do not mess with the “essence” of the sperm and egg. A man is still able to produce sperm and a woman is still able to produce an egg each month.

Just seems that the whole argument here changes when you start talking about barrier methods being used…then it suddenly becomes “illicit” to interfere with the sperm and egg possibly getting together. Having sex only when a woman is infertile IMO is purposely keeping the egg and sperm from getting together.

Correct me if I’m wrong…bottom line for NFPers is that it’s okay to interfere with the procreative process to avoid pregnancy (i.e. keeping the sperm from reaching an egg), but for the “barrier couples” who also have the same objective it is not okay and they are in a state of grave sin while the NFPers are not. That doesn’t seem logical to me. Note: In both examples, the couple’s fertility capabilities remain intact, so that is not the issue.

Perhaps I’ll go back and read West’s article about this…although I don’t recall his response to this very helpful the first time around.

 

[javelin]

DVIN CKS:

…but your ability to procreate is.

CCC 2370: "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".

Abstinence IS an action (look it up in the dictionary) and it is something you do “in anticipation of the conjugal act”.

Good, this is actually a point that can be rationally discussed! Maybe we’re making progress! :dancing:

Your point that abstinence is an act is valid. However, in reading the Church’s statement, it can be interperted to imply the existence of the marital act itself. I believe this is completely presupposed. Participation in the conjugal act is necessary to take action before, during, or after the participation against the act’s natural consequences. If there is no act, then there is no need for the moral law in the first place.

Also, consider taking your logic further. If abstinence is a violation of this moral law because it is done in anticipation of sex, then it would always be immoral to resist sex (abstain). Paul could never have written that it is OK to abstain “for a time” for prayer if abstaining was always immoral.

Since we are discussing what the Church actually teaches, the case can be put to rest by reading the entire section of the Catechism that contains what I quoted. If you look there, it is evident that abstaining is not a violation of the natural law in the Church’s view.

Peace,
javelin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

DVIN CKS,

It isn’t the “essence” of the sperm or ovum that matter, but the essence (instrinsic nature) of our human acts. That’s why *coitus interruptus *(the “withdrawal method”) is also immoral. One ought to ask the following: Have we done something (human acts) which severs the essential relationship of sex to procreation? (intrinsically, i.e. considering the nature of the sex act itself) In artificial birth control, the answer is yes. In NFP, the answer is no. The essence of the act remains the same. What keeps procreation from occurring is abstinence, which the lack of a sex act, and does not affect the intrinsic relationship of the sex act itself towards procreation. Furthermore, sex during naturally occuring infertile periods likewise does not instrinsically (by the very nature of the human act itself) oppose procreation. It is the natural lack of ovum, not the intrinsic nature of the marital act, as the intrinsic nature of the sex act has not been intentionally altered in any way.

The pill makes you sterile. That’s not due to natural consequences, but due to human acts. Intentionally sterilizing your self changes the instrinsic relationship of the sex act to procreation. Condomns, barriers, withdrawal, etc., all change the the instrinsic relationship of the sex ac to procreation.

Natural infertility is not something we do to change the instrinsic nature of the sex act to procreation. God does that. We cannot be charged with changing the instrisic nature of sex by simply abstaining or not.

 

[martino]

DVIN CKS:

Having sex during the infertile period of a woman’s cycle is the same as having sex with barriers. Under each of these scenarios, the “procreative aspect” of the marital act is not 100% intact. The egg is either missing in action, or the sperm is MIA.

So then according to your logic, sitting on the couch watching ‘ON the Record with Greta Van Susteren’ not only violates the Church’s teaching on contraception, but does so more than a couple having sex and using artificial birth control!!! This really is what you are saying!!! Also, the egg isn’t missing in action, it is right where it is supposed to be!

When asked what does the NFP woman withhold from the man during abstinence you said:

Her egg. Same would be said of a man with a vesectomy. He is withholding his sperm. If they would have had sex the week before when she was fertile, her egg would have been “in the game” along with the sperm and the procreative aspect of the marital act would have been 100% represented.

You still maintain that they are withholding from each other by not having sex! So then every time the woman’s egg isn’t being attacked by out of control sperm cells, the couple violates the Church’s teaching? This would include (among many other things) while he is at work and she at home, or them together at the movie theater, or walking in the park. These are the types of things that they do when they are not having sex, yet you maintain that by her not offering her egg and him not offering his sperm during these moments they violate Church teaching, and worse than the ABC couple!!!

From a strictly physiological point of view, if either spouse is withholding the true essence of their sexuality (i.e. either sperm or egg are not present) then one cannot make the claim that the FULL procreative potential of the marital embrace is intact.

One more time…they are not withholding anything during the marital embrace. Just because there is no egg available to fertilize doesn’t equate to her withholding it. The reason the egg isn’t available is because God made her body so that the egg is not present at that moment. Nobody has claimed that you cannot have sex with your spouse unless an egg is present…where did you get that idea?

The Church never forbids sex for married couples no matter where the egg is. The Church only forbids the use contraceptives that artificially block the possibility for conception.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Paul VI makes the distinction that I am insisting upon, that is, our human acts are that which are to be considered as either moral or immoral based upon how they effect the nature of the marital act in it essence. The Church is not opposed to sex that is not procreative. It’s opposed to human actions that intentionally render the sex act itself instrinsically non-procreative.

Pope Paul VI:

In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former [NFP], the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter [artifical birth control], they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By doing so, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love (HV, 16)

 

[bear06]

Participation in the conjugal act is necessary to take action before, during, or after the participation against the act’s natural consequences. If there is no act, then there is no need for the moral law in the first place.

 

[bear06]

The pill makes you sterile. That’s not due to natural consequences, but due to human acts. Intentionally sterilizing your self changes the instrinsic relationship of the sex act to procreation. Condomns, barriers, withdrawal, etc., all change the the instrinsic relationship of the sex ac to procreation.

Ooh, while I agree with you Dave, I’ve just got to point out the common misconception that the Pill makes you sterile 100% of the time. We covered this on another thread but ALL pills have a 3-fold method. #1 to prevent ovulation #2 if ovulation and conception occur, it makes the environment hostile to implantation and # 3 if that fails it sloughs off the implanted egg. I’m sure you probably know that, but many are not aware that in many cases they are aborting when using the pill. There is not one that totally prevents ovulation all of the time.