Circular NFP reasoning

[Scott_Waddell]

Good point if I understand you correctly. That is, take for example, a man commits adultery, he has already mortally sinned, so does it really matter if it was heterosexual adultery or homosexual adultery?

Is that similar to how you are putting it re NFP vs. ABC, or am I off?

Scott

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Great question Scott…In your example, the man’s intent to commit adultery is certainly a mortal sin. Does the fact that he sins with a man make his intent worse? Does a couple’s decision to use ABC make their intent of not being open to children worse? I don’t think so on both accounts. Certainly engaging in homosexual behavior is also a sin so it’s safe to say that this guy has two sins to confess. In this example there is a tendancy to want to equate the man’s adulterous behavior to a couple’s decision not to be open to conceiving anymore kids. That seems harsh. Does the Church teach that it is a mortal sin to decide that you don’t want anymore kids? In your example you are trying to equate the unnatural act of homosexuality with the use of ABC, right? Both do not lead to a pregnancy or “life” so they are both considered unnatural. That seems clear. I guess it comes back to the intent part of the equation with me.

I don’t equate a couple’s decision not to be open to conception with the mortal sin of adultery.

 

[bear06]

Might I suggest you go to the article link I posted. It’s pretty clear what constitutes sinning with NFP and why NFP is different from the barrier methods. Why reinvent the wheel here?

 

[CatholicMatthew]

DVIN CKS:

In your example, the man’s intent to commit adultery is certainly a mortal sin. Does the fact that he sins with a man make his intent worse?

The onlydifference intent could make would be culpability. He has committed two specific sins objectively. They are both of grave matter and thus moral.
DVIN CKS:

Does a couple’s decision to use ABC make their intent of not being open to children worse?

The use of Artificial Birth Control and the intent to not be open to children are two different issues.
ABC is always wrong. It is an immoral means of birth regulation.

Not being “open to life” really depends on what you mean by open to life as their are some potential textual nuances that must be considered due to long usage of the phrase with the meaning being somethig other than what is on the face of it.

If the couple is avoiding children at the current time for a just reason but are willing to except the natural outcome (and they respect how it functions) of the marital embrace they are being open to life (contextual humane vitae meaning from common english translation and what started this thread) while seeking to avoid pregnancy because they will accept a child if pregnancy should occur. However, if a couple is not willing to ever have children no matter what and use licit (moral) means to accomplish this end, using NFP without a just reason to avoid pregnancy, they are guilty of a different sin(s). Selfishness, not submitting to God what is God’s etc? but not the sin of using contraception. The sin they would be committing is not defined and is known to God.
DVIN CKS:

Does the Church teach that it is a mortal sin to decide that you don’t want anymore kids?

Depends on the reasoning and what exactly you mean (God deals with our heart and what we mean is important–that is why I am for precision in these discussions) by not wanting anymore kids. Is the avoidance of pregnancy for a just reason? Is it that you feel you would be unable to take care of them or have a medical constideration or is it that new Harley or RV or eating out at your favorite resturaunt once a week would have to go away? Is it really a mere whim or want or what is truly a need? Then you have to look at the means of accomplishment of the avoidance for what is moral in that realm.
DVIN CKS:

I guess it comes back to the intent part of the equation with me.
…

I don’t equate a couple’s decision not to be open to conception with the mortal sin of adultery.

The couple’s use of contraception is a mortal sin the same as homosexuality and the same as adultery. They are specific actions. A couple that is using contraception is always closed to life by the language spoken by the act itself. Inherently evil.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[DVIN_CKS]

bear06…I never claimed that ABC wasn’t sinful. What wheel are you talking about?

 

[DVIN_CKS]

CatholicMatthew:

Not being “open to life” really depends on what you mean by open to life as their are some potential textual nuances that must be considered due to long usage of the phrase with the meaning being somethig other than what is on the face of it.

I agree with you. God is very clever and brings children into our lives in different ways. Pregnancy isn’t the only way to have a child or “life” come into your family.

I also agree with you about couples wanting to avoid pregnancy but at the same time IF a pregnancy were to occur they would accept it. This can happen regardless of what method the couple uses since ABC and NFP both have failure rates. I don’t split hairs between the two, because I know in my heart that although I don’t want anymore children, IF a pregnancy WERE to occur I certainly wouldn’t abort it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

DVIN CKS:

I also agree with you about couples wanting to avoid pregnancy but at the same time IF a pregnancy were to occur they would accept it. This can happen regardless of what method the couple uses since ABC and NFP both have failure rates. I don’t split hairs between the two, because I know in my heart that although I don’t want anymore children, IF a pregnancy WERE to occur I certainly wouldn’t abort it.

Dear DVIN CKS,

I completely agree with you, and although I think the “ABC is evil” proponents have addressed this, I don’t think they have done so adequately – that is, of course, unless they fall back on “because that’s what the Church teaches” which is a perfectly valid point of view but does nothing to dispel the charge of flawed reasoning to those who think reasoning, if given, should be sound.

Playing “devil’s advocate” for a moment, I am going to try to refute you based on what I think I’ve learned throughout this thread. This will give “the other side” a chance to point out where I might misunderstand their point of view. Here goes…

I don’t split hairs between the two, because I know in my heart that although I don’t want anymore children, IF a pregnancy WERE to occur I certainly wouldn’t abort it.

That may all be true, but you are missing an important distinction. When it is licit to reduce the risk of pregnancy and you use NFP (or extended abstinence?) then you have not done anything to render the marital act infertile. You just “happen” to be engaging in the marital act at times, dictated by God but discernable by scientific means, when the marital act would naturally be infertile. When you use ABC, you are directly interfering with the marital act in such a way as to artifically render it infertile. This means you are not “totally” giving yourself to the other person, and/or that instead of using patience and self-control to synchronize yourself to the rhythms of life, you are actually being greedy and selfish by trying to get the sexual pleasure without the discipline of being open to God’s wishes. Remember too that this is based on the premise with which we all agree that the primary and secondary purpose of the marital act MUST NOT BE SEPARATED.

Alan

 

[Lance_O]

AlanFromWichita:

That may all be true, but you are missing an important distinction. When it is licit to reduce the risk of pregnancy and you use NFP (or extended abstinence?) then you have not done anything to render the marital act infertile. You just “happen” to be engaging in the marital act at times, dictated by God but discernable by scientific means, when the marital act would naturally be infertile. When you use ABC, you are directly interfering with the marital act in such a way as to artifically render it infertile. This means you are not “totally” giving yourself to the other person, and/or that instead of using patience and self-control to synchronize yourself to the rhythms of life, you are actually being greedy and selfish by trying to get the sexual pleasure without the discipline of being open to God’s wishes. Remember too that this is based on the premise with which we all agree that the primary and secondary purpose of the marital act MUST NOT BE SEPARATED.

Wow, Great job, Alan! Thanks be to God… after two pages of this thread I never thought that I’d see the day! YaHoO!! :clapping:

 

[bear06]

DVIN CKS:

bear06…I never claimed that ABC wasn’t sinful. What wheel are you talking about?

Uhhh, read my post again. I don’t think I mentioned NFP.

 

[bear06]

DVIN CKS:

I agree with you. God is very clever and brings children into our lives in different ways. Pregnancy isn’t the only way to have a child or “life” come into your family.

I also agree with you about couples wanting to avoid pregnancy but at the same time IF a pregnancy were to occur they would accept it. This can happen regardless of what method the couple uses since ABC and NFP both have failure rates. I don’t split hairs between the two, because I know in my heart that although I don’t want anymore children, IF a pregnancy WERE to occur I certainly wouldn’t abort it.

This is the argument that the article addresses. The question of “if NFP is so reliable and the desired outcome is the same then why is NFP OK and the barrier method not?” This is the wheel that doesn’t need to be reinvented.

 

[Lance_O]

FYI: Just in case anyone is still having questions on this issue, I noticed a brand new post/answer on this very topic in the AAA section. It was put up today (9/16) and is entitled: What is the moral difference between contraception by artificial means and NFP?

 

[bear06]

AlanFromWichita:

That may all be true, but you are missing an important distinction. When it is licit to reduce the risk of pregnancy and you use NFP (or extended abstinence?) then you have not done anything to render the marital act infertile. You just “happen” to be engaging in the marital act at times, dictated by God but discernable by scientific means, when the marital act would naturally be infertile. When you use ABC, you are directly interfering with the marital act in such a way as to artifically render it infertile. This means you are not “totally” giving yourself to the other person, and/or that instead of using patience and self-control to synchronize yourself to the rhythms of life, you are actually being greedy and selfish by trying to get the sexual pleasure without the discipline of being open to God’s wishes. Remember too that this is based on the premise with which we all agree that the primary and secondary purpose of the marital act MUST NOT BE SEPARATED.

This is quite correct but it is not in total all of the arguments on why NFP is acceptable and ABC is not. The arguments are far more than the Church says so. The other parts are addressed in that great West article! Here’s the link again:
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp

 

[DVIN_CKS]

From the start my focus has always been on a couple’s intent NOT on their method of preventing conception. I prefer to keep the focus on the former. I believe marriage should be open to bringing new life into the world I just don’t believe that EACH and EVERY sexual act must remain open to conception AT ALL TIMES. As we all know, the Church teaches the importance of parental responsibility meaning that married couples have a right and obligation to regulate the size of their families and the spacing of their children. I think we can all agree there.

Alan hit the nail on the head in his last sentence: “Remember too that this is based on the premise with which we all agree that the primary and secondary purpose of the marital act MUST NOT BE SEPARATED”.

To that I respond why can’t the reproductive aspect of sexual activity NEVER - not in ANY circumstance - be deliberately obstructed? To quote Peter Steinfels in his book A People Adrift when referring to the Church’s teaching: “What makes sense in its teaching about the inseparable connection between love, marriage, sexual intimacy, and procreation has been pushed beyond the breaking point by decreeing an **absolute rule ** for each and every act of marital sex” (emphasis is mine).

This is the “loop hole” that I feel hasn’t been adequately addressed. I continue to have a real problem with the Church’s judgments about particular forms of birth control and its condemnation (as the gravest sort of sin) of contraception in any instance and for any purpose. Perhaps it is for this very reason that so many parents/teachers/priests have been unable to stand united on the church’s teaching.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

DVIN CKS:

I believe marriage should be open to bringing new life into the world I just don’t believe that EACH and EVERY sexual act must remain open to conception AT ALL TIMES.

To that I respond why can’t the reproductive aspect of sexual activity NEVER - not in ANY circumstance - be deliberately obstructed? To quote Peter Steinfels in his book A People Adrift when referring to the Church’s teaching: “What makes sense in its teaching about the inseparable connection between love, marriage, sexual intimacy, and procreation has been pushed beyond the breaking point by decreeing an **absolute rule ** for each and every act of marital sex” (emphasis is mine).

The Church cannot be saying that this is an absolute rule for each and every act of marital sex. For example, aren’t couples who know they are sterile (for example because of hysterectomy due to cancer) still allowed to marry and have marital relations? They unfortunately cannot bring children into the world, but that does not prevent them from continuing to have marital relations for the secondary purpose of the act.

There is one small problem I have, though. Perhaps for the human race the primary purpose is reproduction and the secondary purpose is unitive. For any given individual, though, the sexual urge seems to be designed to drive the human flesh toward the unitive purpose, completely unaware and unconcerned with the reproductive purpose. To deny this urge, then, is a form of fasting. Giving in to this urge using ABC would seem to be like drinking diet soft drinks which have artificial sweetener and flavor but no nourishment. Whether with sex or with oral gratification of diet soft drink, one could be saying they are “lying” to themselves, but is it sinful? What makes it sinful? Is it that is enjoyable? Would it be sinful to drink a diet soda only on the condition that you don’t know it is diet – or there may be a chance that it isn’t?

Alan

 

[DVIN_CKS]

P.S. I read that the Church’s ban on contraception is not an infallible dogma. Does anyone know if this is true?

 

[CatholicMatthew]

AlanFromWichita:

Remember too that this is based on the premise with which we all agree that the primary and secondary purpose of the marital act MUST NOT BE SEPARATED.

Actually they are not primary and secondary purposes but co-equal qualities that are interdependent. If you intentionally eliminate (by artificial means) the procreative it also destroys the unitive. However, if you do not change the nature of the act (per se destinatus from above) then the unitive nature and procreative nature are present in form.

PS Form has specific philosophical meaning.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

Ask not what God can do for you, ask what you can do for God.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

DVIN CKS:

P.S. I read that the Church’s ban on contraception is not an infallible dogma. Does anyone know if this is true?

I will respond to some of the other posts between my prior ones and these last two of mine later. However, it is an infallible teaching of the Church. If you would like an explanation on infallibility I am certain it is available on this site or I can provide an overview.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

Wichita, Ks.

 

[bear06]

DVIN CKS:

P.S. I read that the Church’s ban on contraception is not an infallible dogma. Does anyone know if this is true?

This was covered earlier in this thread but I’d say not agreed upon.

 

[bear06]

QUOTE=AlanFromWichita]The Church cannot be saying that this is an absolute rule for each and every act of marital sex. For example, aren’t couples who know they are sterile (for example because of hysterectomy due to cancer) still allowed to marry and have marital relations? They unfortunately cannot bring children into the world, but that does not prevent them from continuing to have marital relations for the secondary purpose of the act.

There is one small problem I have, though. Perhaps for the human race the primary purpose is reproduction and the secondary purpose is unitive. For any given individual, though, the sexual urge seems to be designed to drive the human flesh toward the unitive purpose, completely unaware and unconcerned with the reproductive purpose. To deny this urge, then, is a form of fasting. Giving in to this urge using ABC would seem to be like drinking diet soft drinks which have artificial sweetener and flavor but no nourishment. Whether with sex or with oral gratification of diet soft drink, one could be saying they are “lying” to themselves, but is it sinful? What makes it sinful? Is it that is enjoyable? Would it be sinful to drink a diet soda only on the condition that you don’t know it is diet – or there may be a chance that it isn’t?

Hmmm…I don’t know about this one. I would say there are absolute rules but different categories for these rules. For example: A lot of people have the urge to have sex but they are not all in the same category as far as how these absolutes apply to them.

You have the singles who may have the urge but who would be sinning if they had sex. You have those who have physical limitations which would hinder them conceiving. You have those with grave reasons who need to avoid conception. You have those with no obstacles. Etc.

I’m not sure the soda theory goes here. It might be more applicable to use eating and overeating/undereating. Basically, it is good to nourish yourself. However, for some a huge plate of food is necessary due to a fast metabolism. Some need a less of a plate and some need to reduce drastically for health reasons. There is an absolute rule that is that one needs to be nourished. When, how much, etc. are the categories that we’d all fall under.

Not sure this is compatible either but I think it might be a little more applicable.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

CatholicMatthew:

However, it is an infallible teaching of the Church.

It certainly is a teaching of the church that expects us all to obey, however I’m not sure I agree with you that it is an infallible dogma. Many think the encyclical Humanae Vitae settled the controversy, but in fact it only divided the church more. Rumors did circulate shortly after the encyclical that the pope might solemnly declare the ban an infallible dogma that could not be reversed and had to be believed. Rumors also circulated that papal advisers opposed such a momentous step. ??? Leaves me wondering ???