Circular NFP reasoning

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear Huiou Theou,

Regarding my comment that it’s a shame the Church doesn’t teach on this, and your reply:
Huiou Theou:

It clearly does, as someone has already noted there is the encyclical letter of Paul VI entitled Humanae Vitae.

I was not clear, but I was referring specifically to 1 Cor 7. I’ve read Humanae Vitae and I don’t recall seeing anything from it mentioned at all. Of course, that’s been several months ago or more.

Alan

 

[bear06]

Hey Alan,

Can I be a little more sarcastic on this thread? This is really my true nature but I wouldn’t dream of being sarcastic in the other thread we’ve been dealing with!

Once again, the Church is never has circular arguments. There are no catch-22s. Just because you believe there are circular arguments doesn’t mean that it is so. If there were circular arguments, the Church wouldn’t be THE CHURCH. The Church is linear and vertical. Sometimes when you don’t get something you might just want to come to it as a child, per se.

Somebody else from our other conversation pointed this out to me and I’ve got to say that it’s true. To quote this person “…so many Catholics think THEY are going to be the first and only person in 2000 years of tradition to “outsmart” the Holy Mother Church.” Although I’d probably use “outthink” I believe the idea behind this is very true.

You are not grasping the division of the marital act. You think it the same as the barrier methods of ABC. People have given you articles and explained away but to no avail. Fine. The fact is that it is infallible, the Church has decided and taught and you are to accept it. This should be a good enough explanation but somehow I’m sure it won’t be.

Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe!

 

[Greg_McPherran]

AlanFromWichita:

What I want to know is, if NFP is more effective at preventing pregnancy than artificial means, and artificial means are immoral because they strive to make conception impossible and therefore are not open to life, then couldn’t one logically conclude that NFP, being more effective at preventing pregnancy than artificial means, would actually be more immoral? Someone please help me out here.

NFP tells God that we know He knows more than us.

Artificial contraception tells God that we think we know better than Him. Artificial contraception can also frustrate the divine will if the woman is fertile at the time.

NFP does not frustrate the divine will because you avoid pregnancy while repescting God’s gift of fertility. You respect God’s gift of fertility by not having relations when the woman is likely fertile.

Greg

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lance O:

Alan, this is really much more simple than what you’re making it. Hopefully this will straighten it out for you.

The Church teaches that intercourse is a God-given gift to married couples with a two-fold purpose 1-unitive 2-procreative. These two may not be separated. Each act of intercourse must be open to new life.

Dear Lance O,

I believe you that the Church teaches that. This idea that intercourse “must” be open to new life – especially given all the caveats and stipulations about what constitutes “open” to new life – is arbitrary if not outright nonsense. This is not simple; this is extraordinarily complex justification to support a preconceived notion. In addition, the teaching has so many ifs, ands, or buts that by the time we get through figuring out how we’re going to justify this under these circumstances but not that under those circumstances, there really isn’t any absolute principle left to be upheld at all.

A couple that is using a natural method of family planning that has intercourse on a day of infertility is very likely not going to conceive but they are still open to life. They have not physically done anything to artificially prevent conception. They are simply working with their God-given reproductive cycle that has both fertility and infertility. The Church sees nothing wrong with using days of infertility with the intention of postponing pregnancy; all that the Church is requiring of this couple is that their acts of intercourse are open to new life (see above definition) and that they prayerfully and responsibly plan their family.

A couple that is using condoms, for example, will likely not conceive (although it is more ineffective, as you pointed out). However, they are physically doing something to artificially prevent conception. Therefore they are not open to new life. They are intentionally thwarting their God-given reproductive cycle. This is where the problem with all contraceptives lies. (And as you seem to be aware there are additional problems with methods that are more than just barriers…the abortaficient component.)

For illustrative purposes only, with no disrespect intended, please allow me to indulge in some cliches: 1) potato, potahto, 2) if it walks like a duck… and 3) a rose by any other name…

There is nothing more “natural” about using science and technology (as NFP claims to be “scientifically based”) by using a calendar, thermometer, and other accessories to decide when it is right to get together, than it is to use a barrier technique. Being “open” to life is a mere technicality by the time we get through with it. If we were to be “natural” then we would go with our God-given internal longing for each other, which would mean that “naturally” speaking we would be more likely to have intercourse when the woman is more fertile – that would be the only way to “respect,” and not “thwart,” her natural cycle. It’s like saying that when you are most hungry is when you should fast. Perhaps it makes a good discipline, but it goes against what is natural.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lance O:

Furthermore, this couple is lying. In marriage we give ourselves 100% to the other person. In sex we give ourselves 100% to the other person. Intercourse is a renewal of our marriage covenant, giving yourself 100% to the other person. Artificial contraceptives do not allow the spouses to give themselves 100%. They’re giving everything except their fertility. And if you’re not giving 100% of yourself in intercourse you’re lying with your body.

The Catholic Church not only discourages the use of contraceptives, it forbids it as a mortal sin for these reasons, regardless of the effectiveness of the method. Effectiveness is not the criteria used by the Church to determine whether it is a licit or illicit method for postponing pregnancy.

Dear Lance O,

If the woman is infertile during the act due to strategically timing it, or because of pregnancy, or because of natural or medically-required sterilization, none of these is a 100% sharing of “fertility” and none of these constitutes being “open” to life. To share fertility, then if we can determine scientifically when the woman is most fertile, we would be obliged to have intercourse at that time at least as frequently as at other times.

Hopefully this is clear and hopefully you will take a look at the online Catechism. The first link is the start page and the second link is a very relevant section in the Catechism.

I read it. I believe you are being faithful to it. It still makes no sense, and is complex and convoluted at best if not outright self-contradictory. There may be a reasonable justification for all this, but I still haven’t heard it.

In defense of the Church, God’s ways are not ou ways and our ways are not God’s ways. A man being raised from the dead defies all experiential norms, and with God all things are possible – even the rationalization of NFP. The Church, however, may hold that these teachings are divinely inspired and therefore beyond question, but if so then she has done herself a disservice by trying herself to explain them in terms of logic. The pope may be the expert in faith and morals, but I am an expert at mathematics and logic. If the Church had not tried to explain herself in this regard, then I would be faced with a simple decision: accept her mandates or reject them. I’m not saying she is wrong in the eyes of God. What I am saying, is that since she chose to stray into the realm of logic to try to explain her teachings, she has not, in what I’ve seen so far, put together an explanation that is actually compelling in the realm of logic.

Alan

 

[puzzleannie]

I am past the age where this discussion has personal relevance, but I have 3 married daughters who seek advice, an army of friends in my generation, the first to have so many choices of ABC and to feel the effects of its widespread acceptance on our marriages. Also wide experience as sponsor couple and catechist. But more than that, grounding in Church teaching because I teach for RCIA.

Most of you are missing the point.
ABC is about recreational sex without fear of pregnancy (or as touted for some forms of BC, without fear of STDs). It is about using your own body and the body of another person as objects, as tools for physical pleasure. It is sinful enough and degrading enough outside of marriage, but inside marriage, which is supposed to be a lifelong bond between two people and the image of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his Church, his bride, it is disgusting, depraved and warps the entire nature of the relationship. It destroys the intimacy that is the foundation and source of the marital union.

Participate in any group of women in my generation long enough, and you will hear resonating from the women who depended on ABC in marriage or other non-marriage sexual relationships the sadness and self-disgust that comes from realizing you have been nothing but an object throughout much of that relationship.

What we may have gained in “freedom” from pregnancy and childrearing as annoyance, or even direct threat to physical and mental health, we lost in self-worth and intimacy. Many of us find ourselves in marriages of 30, 40, 50 years where no intimacy ever truly developed, and when the time of life comes that sex is no longer part of the relationship–there is no relationship, because there never was any more to it than sex. This is especially true of women who lived with their spouse before marriage and never benefited from the engagement period in building true interpersonal intimacy, because from the beginning the focus was on sex alone, usually meeting the man’s needs.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

Can I be a little more sarcastic on this thread? This is really my true nature but I wouldn’t dream of being sarcastic in the other thread we’ve been dealing with!

That works for me, and I hope you don’t mind me being a little more forward as well. Now that you mention it, it is thoughtful of you to keep it here rather than there.

Once again, the Church is never has circular arguments. There are no catch-22s. Just because you believe there are circular arguments doesn’t mean that it is so. If there were circular arguments, the Church wouldn’t be THE CHURCH. The Church is linear and vertical. Sometimes when you don’t get something you might just want to come to it as a child, per se.

Somebody else from our other conversation pointed this out to me and I’ve got to say that it’s true. To quote this person “…so many Catholics think THEY are going to be the first and only person in 2000 years of tradition to “outsmart” the Holy Mother Church.” Although I’d probably use “outthink” I believe the idea behind this is very true.

The Church may be much older than me, but as I said in another reply, the pope may be an expert at faith and morals but I am an expert at mathematics and logic. If she wants to debate me on the logic of this issue, then I am willing to take her on anytime, anywhere. So far she has not put up anything that constitutes a realistic logical defense of her position. If she is right, I long to be soundly whipped by her both so that I may be humbled, and so that I may be rid of this troubling spirit of doubt that the Church’s voluminous justifications of her teachings on sex and fertility has nurtured in my mind.

I am not impressed by the argument that the Church is older, more trained in morals and/or traditions, or that the argument is many against one. After all, if everyone else were jumping of a cliff… I am no stranger to being the first one in a very large group to get and articulate a correct answer. What impresses me is an argument that actually supports the conclusions.

You are not grasping the division of the marital act. You think it the same as the barrier methods of ABC. People have given you articles and explained away but to no avail. Fine. The fact is that it is infallible, the Church has decided and taught and you are to accept it. This should be a good enough explanation but somehow I’m sure it won’t be.

You’re absolutely right. It won’t be.

You know, if the Church simply told us what was right and wrong and that it was infallible, then I would have a simple decision: accept it or reject it. Since she has chosen to use libraries full of information to justify her position with logic, she has taken the argument into my territory and so far she isn’t advancing very far.

Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe!

I hear that! If it were only that simple! I’ve actually envied people who didn’t see the complexities in life that I do. There have been times my mind was so uncontrollably active that I wished I were dead so that I could quit thinking. Luckily that phase of my life is over, with much thanks for some great spiritual direction and centering prayer.

You can call me “doubting Thomas,” but look at how Jesus responded to Thomas’s doubts. He offered him the exact evidence that Thomas wanted. In all the volumes of materials you folks have so generously offered so far, I have yet to piece together a coherent story that connects the Church mandates to her ostensible reasons therefore and believe me, I’m really trying. I hate open-endedness and crave resolution, I’m starting to fear that may not happen in my lifetime. If only I were Thomas, then I could believe.:yup:

I was a bit disappointed in your post. At first I thought I was going to see sarcasm, but then you were nice throughout. What’s up with that?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

puzzleannie:

Most of you are missing the point.
ABC is about recreational sex without fear of pregnancy (or as touted for some forms of BC, without fear of STDs). It is about using your own body and the body of another person as objects, as tools for physical pleasure.

Dear puzzleannie,

Thank you for your kind thoughts, and welcome to the forum!

If “recreational sex without fear of pregnancy” is wrong, then how is NFP, advertised to be more effective than ABC at preventing pregnancy, OK? Many have said that the “effectiveness” of the method doesn’t matter, but if I believe NFP really works to prevent pregnancy, than it is precisely that effectiveness that allows me to be “without fear of pregnancy.”

Participate in any group of women in my generation long enough, and you will hear resonating from the women who depended on ABC in marriage or other non-marriage sexual relationships the sadness and self-disgust that comes from realizing you have been nothing but an object throughout much of that relationship.

Perhaps so, but why do they feel that way? Is it because ABC itself hurt their relationship, or was it because many years of being told ABC is evil has built guilt and played on their feelings? Advertisers know very well that they can construct truths in people’s minds, such as the fact that ABC has made them nothing but objects, with constant repitition over a long period of time.

There is no way to isolate the experiences of your friends with ABC from the guilt feelings of being at odds with Church teachings. Unfortunately we cannot do a controlled experiment and find out.

What we may have gained in “freedom” from pregnancy and childrearing as annoyance, or even direct threat to physical and mental health, we lost in self-worth and intimacy. Many of us find ourselves in marriages of 30, 40, 50 years where no intimacy ever truly developed, and when the time of life comes that sex is no longer part of the relationship–there is no relationship, because there never was any more to it than sex.

Was it the freedom from pregnancy and childrearing that you believe caused this problem? If so, then does that mean you are also opposed to NFP?

If not, then how does NFP build intimacy? Because you get to look at calendars together and discuss sex, rather than actually have it? These are real questions I have; although I’ve read a lot on NFP I admit I have not had formal training it. I have tried out the concept, but I guess without having formal training some people call it the “rhythm method” then and somehow that’s all wrong.

This is especially true of women who lived with their spouse before marriage and never benefited from the engagement period in building true interpersonal intimacy, because from the beginning the focus was on sex alone, usually meeting the man’s needs.

I am inclined to agree. I’m not sure of the exact reasoning, but I have always thought living together was a bad prelude for a marriage.

Alan

 

[renee1258]

It develops intamacy because avoidance isn’t taken for granted. Your husband has to respect the wife’s body instead of just saying “why don’t you go one the pill”? All forms of ABC destroys the dignity and sexuality of each person. Sex isn’t on demand as allowed, it is whenever it is called. Whether the married couple has reflected on that month, whether or not it is right to avoid. Foreplay for many is a physical act, but for Catholic couple it starts outside the bedroom with a discussion if the family is ready or not to have another child.

I tell people that I don’t know how many children I will have, they assume I don’t use anything. Right now we are avoiding, due to student loans. I don’t know when we will be ready, but the discussion is always there every time I’m about to ovulate.

 

[mercygate]

This thread makes an assumption that NFP is primarily a method of preventing pregnancy. On the contrary, it is, even more, an extremely effective method of achieving pregnancy.

As stated in my earlier post, while NFP may be used with contraceptive intent, it is not in itself contra-ceptive. If people use it with contraceptive *intent, *they might do well to examine that intent in the light of the entire teaching on marriage.

I Cor 7? I may be dense, but how does that counter the principles employed when couples use NFP?

NFP for spacing children is not a command, it is a concession. cf. I Cor 7.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

renee1258:

It develops intamacy because avoidance isn’t taken for granted. Your husband has to respect the wife’s body instead of just saying “why don’t you go one the pill”? All forms of ABC destroys the dignity and sexuality of each person. Sex isn’t on demand as allowed, it is whenever it is called.

Dear renee1258,

This seems to take the view that the wife is a sex object for use by the husband on his whim like leftovers in the fridge. If that is how it is, I suppose it might help a bit to make him fast periodically. What if a couple using NFP knowledge abstains during fertile periods, but used barrier methods (not abortifacients) of ABC as an extra precaution during infertile times? How does that destroy any dignity? If she’s supposedly infertile anyway, how does it destroy her sexuality? If you want full “sexuality” then you should not abstain during fertile periods, when sexuality is at its maximum, right? Of course, with ABC there might be some slight tactile difference depending on the specific method, but so what? If abstinence is discipline then wouldn’t having to put with a 10% reduction in pleasure also a discipline?

Foreplay for many is a physical act, but for Catholic couple it starts outside the bedroom with a discussion if the family is ready or not to have another child.

I like that thinking. May I extend it to be that foreplay is having a loving, mutually respectful and serving relationship at all times, day in and day out, in keeping your wedding vows? When the couple has true love for each other, then there is built in satisfaction already and sex becomes icing on the cake.

I tell people that I don’t know how many children I will have, they assume I don’t use anything. Right now we are avoiding, due to student loans. I don’t know when we will be ready, but the discussion is always there every time I’m about to ovulate.

Most people do assume things rather than carefully listen to what is said. As much as I’d like to believe I am immune to it, I’m not. We have this wonderful language where we can communicate so precisely, then we go around believing what is not said more than what is said. What’s up with that, anyway?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mercygate:

This thread makes an assumption that NFP is primarily a method of preventing pregnancy. On the contrary, it is, even more, an extremely effective method of achieving pregnancy.

Dear mercygate,

If it is used as a method of achieving pregnancy, then I fully support it and there is no discussion about it.

The premise of this thread was based on NFP being used as a method of preventing pregnancy. Of course, other posters have told me that technically, NFP isn’t a method, it is just information that the couple can use as they like. Whatever. It can be used by the couple in such a way that they abstain during fertile periods and thus avoid pregnancy, so without objection that’s what I mean when I refer to it as a “method” for sake of this discussion.

The circular reasoning I was referring to was that NFP, when used to avoid pregnancy, it a more effective means to that end than ABC. Yet, ABC is not “open to life” whereas NFP is. That’s circular reasoning and so far nobody has been able to explain why it isn’t except with vague innuendos about “not fully giving yourself to each other” as if you had to either be in abstinence or be Super-Lover at any given time with no in-between. Gosh, even at Communion time there are in-between modes. You can go up and receive the Body and the Blood, or you can stay in your pew. You can also go up and get just the Body and not the Blood, (or vice versa?) or you can go up and get just a blessing. Based on the teaching of couples communing with each other, I would think then at Communion time you’d either have to go for the whole thing or stay in your pew because in the other methods you are going through the motions but not fully consenting to the reception of the Lord. If that analogy is ridiculous, please forgive me; I just thought of it five minutes ago.

I Cor 7? I may be dense, but how does that counter the principles employed when couples use NFP?

NFP for spacing children is not a command, it is a concession. cf. I Cor 7.

NFP doesn’t automatically violate the teachings of 1 Cor 7, unless the abstinence period for that particular couple is enough to lead them into temptation. If I said differently in a previous post, you may take this as a “development” of my position.

I don’t see how NFP for spacing children is even addressed by that section. The abstinence and coming back together is for prayer and lust abatement, respectively.

Alan

 

[char34]

Hello, new here! I actually see Alan’s point, although I do not agree ABC is the answer. We have practiced NFP to avoid children for most of our marriage, so it may seem funny to some as I’m now pregnant with number 8!

I get the impression from others on this board that many believe we “should” practice NFP, and that every child should be planned by us, and this discussion should happen monthly. I used to think that way to, but since God’s plans obviously contradicted ours (and I am grateful now they did!) I have to wonder what was the point of us practicing NFP at all? Looking back, our serious reasons now don’t seem very serious at all, so honestly we no longer feel we are capable of deciding for ourselves what is serious or not.

Honestly, I believe our main reason to avoid was based on the fact that we felt like idiots for having more than two kids, at least the majority of our friends and family would try to make us feel that way. It is like when enough people tell you you will never be able to handle/afford most kids you begin to believe it, so we always had that in the back of our minds in the decsion to put off children. It was the fear of being “irresponsible”

My point in writing this is that we need to consider it is not a sin NOT to use nfp to plan your children, saying that, I don’t think it’s sinful to do so either. The idea of planning each of your children is more of a societal pressure, God certainly does not view “unplanned” children as “failures” like so many of us humans do!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

char34:

Hello, new here!

Honestly, I believe our main reason to avoid was based on the fact that we felt like idiots for having more than two kids, at least the majority of our friends and family would try to make us feel that way. It is like when enough people tell you you will never be able to handle/afford most kids you begin to believe it, so we always had that in the back of our minds in the decsion to put off children. It was the fear of being “irresponsible”

Dear char34,

Welcome to the boards. I’m honored you picked on my thread for your first post.

I hear you! When my wife or I tell someone we have six children, their first question is almost always “are they all yours?” They don’t mean anything bad by it; they just can’t seem to imagine that anybody would actually have that many children within a single marriage.

My point in writing this is that we need to consider it is not a sin NOT to use nfp to plan your children, saying that, I don’t think it’s sinful to do so either. The idea of planning each of your children is more of a societal pressure, God certainly does not view “unplanned” children as “failures” like so many of us humans do!

I agree with you, and those who disagree with me probably also agree with you. I think I know which post(s) might have led you to that conclusion, but if you take this entire thread in context along with others where I have argued about similar things, I don’t get the sense that they are saying that just because you are married you MUST use NFP and plan. Is that what you were wondering?

My point was regarding the distinction the Church makes between using NFP to avoid pregnancy, and artificial barrier methods to achieve the same end. I can’t buy into what the Church teaches because I think her logic is flawed. Others are trying to help me understand the Church teaching in a way that can help me accept the Church. Personally I don’t care if the Church concedes (unlikely) or whether she soundly beats me at the logic game, but either way would be resolution for me.

Welcome, again, and I hope you like the forum. It has been great for me. I have learned a lot, and had some great conversations.

Alan

 

[mercygate]

AlanFromWichita:

If that analogy is ridiculous, please forgive me; I just thought of it five minutes ago.

OK, I’ll chuckle. But when we receive any morsel of the Blessed Sacrament we receive the entire Christ . . .

AlanFromWichita:

NFP doesn’t automatically violate the teachings of 1 Cor 7, unless the abstinence period for that particular couple is enough to lead them into temptation. If I said differently in a previous post, you may take this as a “development” of my position.

Thanks – I don’t think your earlier post clarified what you meant by it.

But I do think that the distinction between command and permission is a not-so-subtle one, and does help us “organize” our fear with respect to complete openness to life. As non-Catholics, years ago, we stopped contracepting (on principle) and our marriage flourished as it had failed to do before (OK, that’s not logic, but it’s testimony).

Artificial birth control: the Church position is not against a practice just because it is artificial, it also rejects “natural” practices that interfere with a natural human act of intercourse. Coitus interruptus, for example.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

AlanFromWichita:

I agree with you, and those who disagree with me probably also agree with you.

That sounds really weird. The wording is very messed up. If this is obvious, please take no offense because it isn’t obvious to me that it would be obvious to others.:ehh:

I meant to write:

“I agree with you, and those who disagree with me on other issues probably also agree with you on this one.”:yup:

Also, my apologies in advance if I’ve made wrong assumptions about others’ opinions. OK, backpedaling now…

Alan

 

[char34]

Thanks for the welcome! You’re right, many people ask if this is my second (or third) marriage too!

You said:

“My point was regarding the distinction the Church makes between using NFP to avoid pregnancy, and artificial barrier methods to achieve the same end. I can’t buy into what the Church teaches because I think her logic is flawed. Others are trying to help me understand the Church teaching in a way that can help me accept the Church. Personally I don’t care if the Church concedes (unlikely) or whether she soundly beats me at the logic game, but either way would be resolution for me”

I think the main difference between ABC and NFP is sacrifice, obviously you do not have to give up sex any time of the month using ABC. On the other hand, chemical methods of BC,such as the pill, actually cause many women to desire sex much less, meaning you will probably end up abstaining anyway, or the woman will give in and be much less into it, leaving both the husband and wife frustrated, the wife may feel resentful and/or used, the husband may feel disappointed his wife is never into it.This is much worse than both desiring sex yet abstaining IMO! Hope I’m making sense here!

On the other hand, I don’t think regular long periods of abstinence are beneficial to all marriages, which is probably why I brought up the fact that NFP is not a requirement in marriage.

 

[keith2002]

but since God’s plans obviously contradicted ours (and I am grateful now they did!) I have to wonder what was the point of us practicing NFP at all? Looking back, our serious reasons now don’t seem very serious at all, so honestly we no longer feel we are capable of deciding for ourselves what is serious or not.

Honestly, I believe our main reason to avoid was based on the fact that we felt like idiots for having more than two kids, at least the majority of our friends and family would try to make us feel that way. It is like when enough people tell you you will never be able to handle/afford most kids you begin to believe it, so we always had that in the back of our minds in the decsion to put off children. It was the fear of being “irresponsible”

These words of yours are very telling. I wonder if you ever would have come to the insights you spell out above if YOU HAD NOT PRACTICED NFP. I think in your case, NFP allowed you to come to these conclusions. IMHO it would be a lot tougher for a couple who is contracepting to reach this same conclusion.

NFP in most cases I believe forces couples to continually re-examine their motives in light of God’s will for their lives. That, is more of a challenge for contracepting couples I believe.

Keith

 

[char34]

Yes, that is a good point Keith! I’m sure I wouldn’t have come to these conclusions using ABC. While I imagine we may be still be a little fearful of what the future holds, I prefer to remain open to life (like I said, our own decisions aren’t always the best ones).

 

[tTt]

Becareful, Centering prayer

---

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=234

dotm.org/decelles-1.htm