Circular NFP reasoning

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlanFromWichita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
tTt:
Becareful, Centering prayer
Hi, tTt,

In case anyone is interested in what tTt is talking about, consider what one of its originators writes about it:
centeringprayer.com/intimacy/intimacy01a.htm

Centering prayer is a type of contemplative prayer, the deepest of the three types written about in the Catechism: vocal, meditative, and contemplative. See that at:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p4s1c3a1.htm

For discussion on Centering Prayer and one of its founders, see this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13373

Alan
 
Oh, now I see! You aren’t holier than the Church, just more logical! :bowdown: Once again, just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean the explanation isn’t right in front of you. It just means you don’t get it!

As far as infallibility…I think you need to do a little more reading on this subject. If the Church was allowed to teach Faith and Morals without infallibility we’d all be in trouble.
 
Alan,

Please allow me to make an observation. At the beginning of this thread you were critical of NFP because it is just as effective (or more so) than ACs.

In Javelin’s thread you were critical of NFP because, at first, you thought that it didn’t jive with Paul’s Corinthians verse on abstinance.

Then, back on the ‘Circular Reasoning’ thread you countered my offering with ‘the Church’s explanation of this teaching is illogical.’
(which, I do not believe is any sort of substantial argument since it does not provide a counter-point on a specific element to the response and it does not allow for discussion.)

I’m seriously beginning to wonder if you’re honestly reflecting on and praying about this issue and people’s earnest attempts to explain it to you or if you’re grasping at straws and trying to come up with anything that, to you, will justify your closed-heartedness and your opinion on the matter.
 
Lance O:
Alan,

Please allow me to make an observation. At the beginning of this thread you were critical of NFP because it is just as effective (or more so) than ACs.
I was not critical of NFP because it was more effective. I was critical of NFP literature and articles (I saw as propaganda) which simultaneously heralded NFP as being more effective than “ABC” while claiming that NFP was “open to life” while ABC is not. That is the heart of my “circular reasoning” claim which inspired this thread.
In Javelin’s thread you were critical of NFP because, at first, you thought that it didn’t jive with Paul’s Corinthians verse on abstinance.
I’ve learned so much in the last few days, and even changed my mind on a few issues as a result of these discussions, that without going back and re-reviewing it I’ll take your word for it. There are other reasons I might flip-flop on issues. Often I really don’t know what side I am on, especially at first, so I’ll pick at whatever holes I might see on all sides until one seems to be more logical.
Then, back on the ‘Circular Reasoning’ thread you countered my offering with ‘the Church’s explanation of this teaching is illogical.’
(which, I do not believe is any sort of substantial argument since it does not provide a counter-point on a specific element to the response and it does not allow for discussion.)
I don’t believe I actually used the term “illogical,” at least on this thread. I did say, “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.” I stand by that statement, if you allow me to add the words “to me” after the word “sense” so that I am not claiming more than I know at this point. I agree that it is not a substantial argument; it is an assessment of my current view of the Church’s position, based on what I have understood so far.
I’m seriously beginning to wonder if you’re honestly reflecting on and praying about this issue and people’s earnest attempts to explain it to you or if you’re grasping at straws and trying to come up with anything that, to you, will justify your closed-heartedness and your opinion on the matter.
I can understand how it can look that way, but I have learned and have changed. For example, since I started on this forum three weeks ago, I made a major change in the area of judging the Church by the Bible v. the Church’s authority to interpret the Bible, and in the area of interpretation and applicability of the infamous 1 Cor 7 passages that so interest me. (for the latter, see post #100 under javelin’s “Moral dilemma” thread)

I may be stubborn, but when I get licked, I gladly admit it and immediately become a staunch defender of the truth that I finally saw. I may be grasping at straws sometimes, but I don’t consider myself as “closed-hearted” on the matter. I have a thick protective shell built up over time in defense of lots of BS I’ve heard for nearly 40 years from religious authorities, starting from the nun who punished me in front of the whole class for subtracting two from one when she claimed it was impossible. Thirty years later I learned the truth, that she honestly didn’t know any better. That’s a whole other story, but that and dozens of others over my lifetime including several big ones within the last few years may help you understand why I am so careful about believing things just because somebody wearing religious clothes told me so.

Alan
 
40.png
bear06:
Oh, now I see! You aren’t holier than the Church, just more logical! :bowdown:
Thank you, thank you very much! Finally somebody understand me! :dancing:

God only knows the evil in my heart. No matter how much I try to use it all up there seems to be an endless supply. :whistle:

JPII is a holy man as far as I know. I wouldn’t want his job, nor do I believe I could do it. I actually believe he was sincere when he forgave the man that shot him.:yup:
Once again, just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean the explanation isn’t right in front of you. It just means you don’t get it!
This statement passed unscathed through my logic filter, so I agree. However, I would like to add the point that when I don’t get something, sometimes it is because the explanation isn’t right in front of me.
As far as infallibility…I think you need to do a little more reading on this subject. If the Church was allowed to teach Faith and Morals without infallibility we’d all be in trouble.
Maybe you’re right. I gave up on infallibility for a while because I’ve been so busy arguing this thing about contraception. If I end up winning this one, then it will feed my anti-infallibility mentality. If I lose this one, it may help open me more to the infallibility teaching.

I don’t believe that the Church being fallible on faith and morals implies that we’d be in trouble. In fact, my major concern is that we might be in big trouble for believing in her infallibility, or that some of her troubles may be brought about or exacerbated by her claim. I’m just throwing it out there for now, but my concern about this has actually increased as a result of the things I’ve learned on this forum.

Alan
 
40.png
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?
I asked this to a good priest friend of mine. He said that there are three types of people. Those who can legitimately use NFP and those who use NFP to get around having kids. Condoms and the such are always related to the one intent, preventing fertilization. While those who can legitiamtely use NFP are using it and are (or should be) open to the fact that fertilization could still take place. Then you have the third group who can not legitimately use NFP and do and who at the same hope against hope that it works and fertilization does not take place. People that fall into group three are often those you hear of that have been married for three years and have no kids because they use NFP when rightfully so they don’t fall into the perameters to be able to use it in the Church’s eyes.

So in the end the end one should look at: What the Church asks for as perameters to be able to legitimately use NFP. And then the always famous intention of the people that use it no matter what perameter.

Hope this helps,

jegow
 
If you don’t believe the infallibility issue than you don’t believe Christ. He said he would not leave us alone to figure this all out. Use the precious logic. He’s not going to let the Church mislead us in her teachings on Faith and Morals.

I don’t think the scope of infallibility is as broad as you think. It only has to do with those teachings defined as infallible, teachings by the Pope on Faith and Morals or teachings by the bishops IN UNION WITH THE POPE. I always like to highlight that part because so many people think that if 10 bishops say it’s so it must be. It only counts if they are in union with the Vicar of Christ. Canonizations are also recognized infallible even though they deal with private revalation.
 
Hi everyone, I just spent about an hour or so reading every post thus far – interesting conversation, and I’d like to throw in my two cents.

Alan, I totally see your difficulty with the logic of the proposition that “NFP is good and ABC is bad because one is open to life and the other is not”. You are completely correct that it does not make sense, especially considering how much it is touted that NFP can be 99%+ effective. That’s not being “open to life” any more than doing something else that is only 90% effective.

You know from participation in my other thread that I spoke with a priest this afternoon concerning my situation, and lo and behold, by God’s grace, he happens to be a specialist in medical morality and ethics, having taught courses for years in applying Church moral law to medical circumstances. Wow, what a match for my situation! Anyhow, he answered my (your) question in a way that was only a slight nuance to what has been going around and around on this thread, except that it actually made sense to me. So here is my best attempt at reproducing it:

The justification for “NFP good, ABC bad” is not really measured by an “openness to life.” That phrase is really slightly incorrect, although it is widely used because it is simple and generally to the point.

The crucial difference is that with ABC, one deliberately chooses against life, taking action before, during, or after the conjugal act to thwart the life-producing outcome. With NFP, you simply do not act. Abstaining does nothing to deliberately thwart the marital act because there is no act to thwart. This is why withdrawal is also immoral even though it is not “artificial” – it is acting against the life-giving outcome of the sexual union.

When contracepting, you are acting against life. When abstaining, you are not even acting. When having relations to conceive, you are acting in harmony with bringing life. Consider it like voting. You can vote NO to life, you can abstain, and you can vote YES. Only the NO vote is immoral, and really (I think) only the YES vote actually bears fruit (I know some will disagree with this characterization, but since this is tangential, I will only say now that it is not abstinence itself that bears fruit, but the good things couples may do while abstaining). Abstaining is really just the status quo.

The key is that it’s all about *action *based on the intent to contracept. Many things seem to fall into place when looking at it from this perspective for me. Intent alone doesn’t matter; effectiveness of method doesn’t matter.

That is why it is morally OK for a couple to engage in sex even when one partner is taking medication for an illness that has the side-effect of causing infertility (radiation treatments, for example). The action causing infertility is there, but not the intent to contracept; the contraception is just a side-effect. Likewise, when there is a good reason for not conceiving, abstaining (NFP) is morally OK because, even though the intent is not to conceive, there is no action taken against life.

So the Church isn’t giving us a positive directive (“You must always be open to life”), but rather a negative one (“You must not act against life”). The sexual act is still good and holy even if it does not produce life, but it is not good and holy if you deliberately act against life.

Obviously the distinction is fine enough that it is hard to describe (which is why the “open to life” phrase is so often substituted). Yet it is a distinction that actually makes sense in that it is not self-contradictory. The line, however fine it may seem, is now very clearly there for me. I hope it can be for you.

What do you think?

Peace,
javelin
 
40.png
jegow:
I asked this to a good priest friend of mine. He said that there are three types of people…
Dear jegow,

Thank you for gathering this opinion and sharing it. I’m not sure I understand, so I’ll see if I have it right:

Type 1 use NFP along with condoms and other methods to prevent havin children,

Type 2 use NFP to reduce chance of having children but are aware of and OK with the fact that fertilization may take place anyway, and

Type 3 use NFP with a very strong hope of not having children.

Somehow that doesn’t look right, but I’m not sure so I will not try to digest it just yet.

Thanks again,
Alan
 
Beautiful Javelin! That’s Natural Law but is spelled out much more coherently than I could put it!
 
Wow, Javelin! I am so happy you feel at peace with the explanation the priest gave!!! That post was amazing!
 
I am glad you asked for a clarification - sometimes my original thought doesn’t quite come out right. What I was trying to say is that in the spectrum of people that we are talking about there are what I tried to say, three groups that can generally placed.
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Dear jegow,
Thank you for gathering this opinion and sharing it. I’m not sure I understand, so I’ll see if I have it right:

Type 1 use NFP along with condoms and other methods to prevent havin children,

Type 2 use NFP to reduce chance of having children but are aware of and OK with the fact that fertilization may take place anyway, and

Type 3 use NFP with a very strong hope of not having children.

Somehow that doesn’t look right, but I’m not sure so I will not try to digest it just yet.

Thanks again,
Alan
What I meant say about the three of them was this. That in group:

1 - You have those who can legitimately use NFP and do use it to plan the rest of their family.

2 - You have those who can’t legitimately use NFP (because they have no reason to), but they use it anyway.

3 - You have those who use the barrier contraseptives such as condoms, etc.

I was hoping to show that in groups 2 & 3 there is a similar intention, to prevent conception from taking place - they are just using different means of doing it. Those that who fall into group 2 I have always been taught should not be using NFP. For example, a newly wed couple should not be using it - why? Because I have also learned that you don’t get married unless you are going to have children - like in the near future too. I also think that it reduces the total self giving aspect in that section of marriage (group 2’s) because it doesn’t seem like God is really being included in the picture. But more of the will of the couple to wants to plan on being worry free for a while and maybe have a kid later on.

I hope this helps a little more than the first post did.

jegow
 
Alan:

I know exactly what you are talking about, because my husband and I were wondering the same thing. (He has recently had a vasectomy reversal). When we decided to have the reversal, due to a faith conversion, we were open to more children, but kept asking ourselves, “When can we stop having children?” The answer we received from Fr. Serpa in the apologetic forum is: because of OUR circumstances, never. I am 40, my husband is 44, we are both healthy, financially stable, psychologically sound to handle more children, and we are responsible parents. Fr. Serpa asked, “why wouldn’t you want to have more children?” It hit a cord with us, so we decided to let go, and let God. We refuse to let our selfish ways, and what WE want, get in the way of what GOD wants. We did that for too many years. If we have teenagers while in our 60’s, then so be it. Sixty or 65 isn’t considered old any longer, and neither is seventy for that matter. I figure, the more the merrier!

I heard a tape from Fr. John Corapi SOLT and he talked about some reasons to postpone pregnancy temporarily or indefinitely. They are financial reasons, psychological reasons, or health reasons. I think there are a few more, but I can’t remember what they are. Basically, you can’t postpone pregnancy because you want more freedom, or because you can’t take those cool family vacations for a while because you’ll have a baby to take of, etc. etc. etc. It has to be a REAL good reason, other wise you must always be open to life when having marital relations with your spouse.

Sorry I’m so long winded, but your question was a good one. And one that many people probably think about all the time. For a more thorough answer, get on the Ask an Apologetic Forum, they’re good people over there.

Mother Teresa sums it all up with this:
*“It is a very great poverty to decide that a child must die that you might live as you wish.” *While mother is talking about abortion, those of us that postpone pregnancy because of how WE want to live, THAT is a great poverty as well.

God bless you,
Conniejean
 
While I think I’ve found a personally-satisfactory answer to the circular reasoning thing (NFP-ABC), I’m still having trouble with the whole “when it is good or not to use NFP” part of the discussion.
40.png
conniejean:
They are financial reasons, psychological reasons, or health reasons… It has to be a REAL good reason, other wise you must always be open to life when having marital relations with your spouse.
Here’s that “open to life” argument that just doesn’t seem to hold water for me. Here, the Church seems to be saying that unless you have a very good reason to not have children, then you must have children. This is a different mentality than the one I espoused (and with some nice support, thank you very much) in my last thread. It is a mentality and logic which leads to the circular logic about ABC that is frustrating Alan (and many others, I’m sure). The command that married people must have children is confusing, especially in light of passages like 1 Cor 7, which strongly implies that marriage is to share relations in love to avoid sexual temptations and sins. Nowhere does it say that marriage is for making as many babies as humanly possible. I would say “be fruitful and multiply” is more a directive for our race than for each person or couple. Paul admits that each is called differently. While children are definitely one of the most wonderful blessings God can give, the effort needed to raise them is significant, and should it be directed toward other holy endeavors, great good could come there as well. And God needs workers in many, many areas of service, not just the home.

For an instance of how this is just weird in application, say that after practicing NFP for several years with very good reasons, those reasons disappear. To all the women reading this who have learned NFP, can you possibly just “turn off” your awareness of your cycle so that you no longer know when you are fertile? Are you then morally bound to have sex every day until it brings forth conception, since any abstaining is essentially NFP, which is no longer morally acceptable? Please read all this again until you really see the point before jumping in with a response.

Anything that can be construed as a command to have children just doesn’t make sense.

It makes a lot more sense to say that every married couple should be open to the possibility that God will call them to be parents, but that He may also not want them to be parents. They may need to be married, just as Paul says, simply to abate their lustful desires in a way that is not evil. But it is up to the couple to discern that with God. A couple should be able to honestly say “I don’t have any physical, mental, or financial reasons to avoid a child right now, but I’m going to practice NFP to avoid conception because I really think God still wants us to wait.”

What do you think?

Peace,
javelin
 
The biggest difference that I see between NFP and other contraception is that NFP is successful because of abstinance. Other birth control is successful so as to avoid abstinance. Other contraception aims to allow sex and not have children. NFP aims to avoid sex so as not to have children.

NFP is self-sacrifice. NFP is hard. NFP is challenging.

Other contraception is hedonistic and easy.
 
While it’s true that God calls us all to different vocations, we have chosen married life as ours. Our dedication to this vocation comes first not to help in other areas that may need it. We are called to do all we can in other areas too as long as it’s not to the detriment of our primary vocation, marriage.

You are quite correct that there is no place where it says we must have as many babies as humanly possible and nowhere does our Church say that you have to act on every chance of fertility. This would go against Natural Law. That said, part of our vocation is to lovingly accept the children God sends to us and the Bible does tell us to go forth and mulitply and to fill our quivers!

If a person’s situation should change after years of using NFP then you would take all the times that you normally abstain and let them go. You certainly don’t ever need to plan on having sex at any certain time unless, of course, you want to!

We have a delicate balancing act here. We not only have to follow the Bible commands but we also have to follow them in the light of the teachings of the Church which is also another Bible command. Everything we see in the Bible can be found in the scope of Church teachings. You cannot divide the two. One does not trump the other. This goes back to private revalation and the divine revalation of the Church.
 
You know, Javelin, there is a whole other group out there called “Providentialists” who choose not to use ABC or practice NFP. They disregard signs of fertility and simply have coitus whenever the mutual desire to love one another is there. (Which is, in effect, what NFP people do, too–as my husband says, “We have sex whenever we want to. Since we don’t want to conceive right now, for serious reasons, we therefore don’t “want to” on days when you are fertile.”) “Providentialists” believe the divine providence of God is enough for them to trust that a pregnancy (or lack thereof) must be His will, and they will take His will and embrace it with joy. Do they have sex every day? Doubtful. Are they sinning by not having sex at every opportunity? Um, again, doubtful! 🙂

The Church does not teach that we must ALL be “providentialists” because she recognizes that couples DO have reason to avoid pregnancy (by choosing to abstain from the act of lovemaking–never directly inhibiting an act that is taking place). There are soooo many reasons that could fall under “grave” reasoning. But ultimately every reason I can think of falls into either physical, emotional or financial categorization.

As a woman practicing NFP for 13 cycles (married just over a year), it’s interesting how my application of the tool has developed. At first, it was somewhat challenging for me to “get into it” because I felt like the rules and documentation and information-gathering was so overwhelming. But I began to realize that while there is a wealth of knowledge about the science behind it, there are also just a few hard and fast basic principles that allow my husband and I to practice it successfully without feeling like we’re making my fertility too clinical for our mutual taste.

I have a serious reason to avoid, a health reason, that came up just after we were married. So, while I am working on healing this health issue, my husband and I conservatively avoid intercourse when I appear fertile. Do I chart this? No. Do I take my temperature? No. I just observe outward signs until I am completely clear of them. I somewhat take notice of what “day” I am in my cycle, so as to guage it with what I think I am seeing in terms of indicators. (I am not saying this is typical of all NFP couples–it is simply how WE practice NFP.)

I would also say that if we didn’t have any physical health reasons, emotional reasons and/or financial reasons, abstaining with the PURPOSE of avoiding children would seem very strange (as per your last statement). How would I then rationalize that God might want me to avoid…? The grave reasons (or lack thereof) are precisely the compass my husband and I use in determining what God wants for our lives.

Lastly, I comfort myself that each baby conceived is one that God has willed for all eternity to exist. I can’t conceive a “mistake.” There are NO mistakes with God. He is outside of Time as we understand it, and every baby has been planned from the very beginning. Even though I am avoiding, I am open to whatever God may give me during the seemingly “impossible to conceive” days that we choose to come together. I trust that He will not give me more than I can handle, but I will do my part to act responsibly in determining (with the intellect He gave me) when (along with my husband) we might try to achieve or avoid.
 
Can it ever be sinful not to use NFP? One priest told me it can be sinful, more than one priest to me it can never be sinful, that we are not obligated to use NFP. Who am I suppose to believe? If it is okay to be providentialists, than I assume it must be okay to never use NFP, regardless of circumstances.

If it is never sinful to not use NFP, if we totally trust in God regarding our fertility, than we wouldn’t feel tempted to use ABC nor would we be under the burden to either abstain for long periods or even totally abstain according to an NFP chart. That way, we would be free of the burden of sin! (I think???) Perhaps the couple can abstain as we would such as when we decide to fast from anything else if we desire to, by mutual agreement. Then again, abstinence seems to happen naturally anyways when a couple is busy with work and familyl

So, does anyone think “totally leaving our family size up to God” is sinful, regardless of circumstances? If we conceived a child after developing a serious illness, would God be disappointed , or would He be pleased for trusting in him totally? Finally, if God would apparently be pleased for trusting in Him totally, why bother using NFP at all?
 
I think every marital act requires a decision and a consultation with God. Sometimes, of course, this doesn’t have to take but a moment. Other times it might need to take awhile longer.

I think the question really need to be “What does God want for our vocation, now?” Any answer would rely on God’s mercy for us. Some of us are called to one thing and some are called to another. Some are called to 10 kids and some 1,2,3,etc.

Some saints were called to takes risks in life and some saints lived a divine but ordinary life. The same goes for us. So I’d have to say that if, in consultation with God, the third person in their marriage, they feel called to never use NFP no matter what the circumstance than that is what they should do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top