Concept of Conception Perfection - Your thoughts

[PassingThru]

I’m not sure I’m precisely following your reasoning. I’m not sure who explained to you that the actual abstinance during fertile days was not the big issue, but I’m 95% that person is wrong. That abstinance is precisely the difference between ABC and NFP.

Hmmm, maybe someone else can chime in, but I still don’t see how the sacrifice of NFP is what makes it moral. Just as a woman who is unable to conceive can have sex with her husband at any time, even though it will never result in a child. Or, look at it this way: If there was a natural way to have sex during the fertile period and have no child result, it would still be considered moral by Church standards, as nothing was done to interfere with the natural act. My understanding is that it is the interference with the natural act that makes ABC unacceptable. The fact that NFP uses our knowledge of a womans cycle is secondary; it is a choice to not have sex, therefore not have children. The abstinence is secondary, almost a side effect, but NOT the requirement. Maybe someone can clarify.

ABC is sex on demand utterly divorced from its natural outcome. It is like binging on rich foods and then puking it up so it doesn’t make your butt big. NFP, on the other hand requires the development of the virtue of chastity, which is much more than simply the gritting out of periodic abstinance. (just like good nutrition is about more than just refraining from eating too many Chips Ahoy!)

Ahhh, but does it have to be, or is that just how you see it? What stops it from being a simple practice of “gritting it out”? More specifically, if as I proposed NFP was as simple and widespread as ABC, what would lead you to believe that the practice of NFP would not be as misguided or abused as ABC is now? I am focusing on the inherent properties of NFP, not on current or past practice by its practitioners.

God didn’t make woman fertile all the time. He could have, but didn’t. His plan for human sex is BOTH about bonding and babies. The abstinance requirement during fertile times is how you keep the link between the two intact. You face your allegedly serious reason for avoiding while in the full throes of raging hormones that demand action! That’s not a coincidence! That’s how God designed humans to overcome the obvious difficulties of raising a family. The fact that ABC precisely corresponds with catastrophic drops in fertility rates wherever it becomes common dramatically illustrates this! Virtually every nation with ready access to the pill and condoms has a fertility rate of about HALF the replacement rate. The only exceptions are those nations with significant immigration rates from cultures where the pill hasn’t yet taken deep root (such as the USA, though we too just dropped below replacement rate).

Again, think about my proposal. What if NFP, as the Church desires, became the de-facto choice for avoiding pregnancy? If we had the same scenario you describe above (drop in birth rates) but it was now due to widespread, simple, and effective use of NFP, would that therefore change your assertions?

As I said at the beginning, my attempt is to strip away all these secondary issues and focus simply on the methods themselves.

God is a smart guy. I tend to think He stills knows a little bit more about how our sexuality works than we do. That was how I decided to accept church teaching. In the 10 years since, I’ve gradually experienced the ancient wisdom behind it.

Actually, this has always been the argument I have no real disagreements with. Trusting in the teachings of the Church on sexuality and having it resonate with the person is powerful, and something which I will never disagree with.

 

[davidv]

Hmmm, maybe someone else can chime in, but I still don’t see how the sacrifice of NFP is what makes it moral.

The sacrifice involved is not the deciding factor. Abstinence is. Abstinence is morally neutral. ABC is immoral. These two facts are what distinguish the two.

Just as a woman who is unable to conceive can have sex with her husband at any time, even though it will never result in a child. Or, look at it this way: If there was a natural way to have sex during the fertile period and have no child result, it would still be considered moral by Church standards, as nothing was done to interfere with the natural act. My understanding is that it is the interference with the natural act that makes ABC unacceptable. The fact that NFP uses our knowledge of a womans cycle is secondary; it is a choice to not have sex, therefore not have children. The abstinence is secondary, almost a side effect, but NOT the requirement. Maybe someone can clarify.

See above.

Ahhh, but does it have to be, or is that just how you see it? What stops it from being a simple practice of “gritting it out”? More specifically, if as I proposed NFP was as simple and widespread as ABC, what would lead you to believe that the practice of NFP would not be as misguided or abused as ABC is now? I am focusing on the inherent properties of NFP, not on current or past practice by its practitioners.

Again, think about my proposal. What if NFP, as the Church desires, became the de-facto choice for avoiding pregnancy? If we had the same scenario you describe above (drop in birth rates) but it was now due to widespread, simple, and effective use of NFP, would that therefore change your assertions?

As I said at the beginning, my attempt is to strip away all these secondary issues and focus simply on the methods themselves.

Actually, this has always been the argument I have no real disagreements with. Trusting in the teachings of the Church on sexuality and having it resonate with the person is powerful, and something which I will never disagree with.

I still don’t understand what easy or hard has to do with any of this.

 

[manualman]

I still don’t see the point at which we are talking past each other. So I’ll try to reduce the complexity still further.

ABC = sex whenever demanded with active steps taken to prevent pregnancy. I am God, I will take what I want when I want it. I say there are no side effects of this.

NFP= If pregnancy is not prudent, I must submit my will to God’s when God makes my wife fertile and give up what I want on those days. In this case, God remains God and I remain a puny human. Not surprisingly, God isn’t just arbitrary in this restriction. Turns out that having to submit my will to the nature He created in sex helps to preserve a healthy and natural sexuality and couples who do so tend to develop a complete, not just partially developed sexual relationship. One that has far less divorce, infidelity and far greater openness to the selflessness of parenthood. That’s not just my opinion, that’s the overwhelming empirical data (admittedly correlation doesn’t PROVE causation, but its often a pretty good hint!)

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I still don’t see the point at which we are talking past each other. So I’ll try to reduce the complexity still further.

ABC = sex whenever demanded with active steps taken to prevent pregnancy. I am God, I will take what I want when I want it. I say there are no side effects of this.

NFP= If pregnancy is not prudent, I must submit my will to God’s when God makes my wife fertile and give up what I want on those days. In this case, God remains God and I remain a puny human. Not surprisingly, God isn’t just arbitrary in this restriction. Turns out that having to submit my will to the nature He created in sex helps to preserve a healthy and natural sexuality and couples who do so tend to develop a complete, not just partially developed sexual relationship. One that has far less divorce, infidelity and far greater openness to the selflessness of parenthood. That’s not just my opinion, that’s the overwhelming empirical data (admittedly correlation doesn’t PROVE causation, but its often a pretty good hint!)

So now suppose that NFP technology has advanced to its intended goal and it is now extremely good at predicting when a woman will ovulate. It is so good in fact that you never have to abstain for more than 5 days per cycle. In fact NFP has become so easy to use that nobody, even non-religious people, uses any form of ABC anymore There are no more extended periods of abstinence due to health conditions or anything else because the method is now perfect. The only period you will ever have to abstain is during the very narrow time that a man and a woman can actually come together to make a new life. So you see, the sacrifice is now gone and now conforming your will to God’s is as easy as pie. Would that change your opinion of NFP in any way or would you feel the same way about it?

 

[PassingThru]

I still don’t see the point at which we are talking past each other. So I’ll try to reduce the complexity still further.

ABC = sex whenever demanded with active steps taken to prevent pregnancy. I am God, I will take what I want when I want it. I say there are no side effects of this.

NFP= If pregnancy is not prudent, I must submit my will to God’s when God makes my wife fertile and give up what I want on those days. In this case, God remains God and I remain a puny human. Not surprisingly, God isn’t just arbitrary in this restriction. Turns out that having to submit my will to the nature He created in sex helps to preserve a healthy and natural sexuality and couples who do so tend to develop a complete, not just partially developed sexual relationship. One that has far less divorce, infidelity and far greater openness to the selflessness of parenthood. That’s not just my opinion, that’s the overwhelming empirical data (admittedly correlation doesn’t PROVE causation, but its often a pretty good hint!)

Well, OK. I am trying to keep this as level headed as possible by removing this kind of emotion. You are loading all kinds of personal opinions into this to make a point. I think Kostya is understanding what we are talking about here. You seem to be bent on how evil ABC and its practitioners are and how pious practitioners of NFP are. Fine. You are still missing the point of any discussion of the merits of WHY this is the case. As I said before, NFP *could *be as wide spread as ABC today, with likely the same negative aspects of ABC (promiscuity, lack of respect, abuse of the purpose of sex, etc) , but you like to gloss over that. IF this were the case, would you then see that these characteristics are not inherent in NFP, but characteristics of the *people *who practice NFP? Or would you propose that most of the US population would become God fearing church-goers?

 

[PassingThru]

So now suppose that NFP technology has advanced to its intended goal and it is now extremely good at predicting when a woman will ovulate. It is so good in fact that you never have to abstain for more than 5 days per cycle. In fact NFP has become so easy to use that nobody, even non-religious people, uses any form of ABC anymore There are no more extended periods of abstinence due to health conditions or anything else because the method is now perfect. The only period you will ever have to abstain is during the very narrow time that a man and a woman can actually come together to make a new life. So you see, the sacrifice is now gone and now conforming your will to God’s is as easy as pie. Would that change your opinion of NFP in any way or would you feel the same way about it?

Thank you for understanding this in not about ABC or NFP being right or wrong.

 

[manualman]

I’m not trying to emotion load, I’m trying to boil it down for you so you comprehend.

OK, the magic fertility meter is invented and everybody adopts it (fat chance). You still have those 5 days a month that happen to be the days the woman is THE most receptive and easily aroused. With NFP, you come face to face with your allegedly serious reason for those 5 days. 5 days a month you unavoidably are reminded vividly that sex is linked with babies. With ABC, you just keep taking the pill as a matter of routine and never even have to think about why. Sex and babies can easily become unrelated topics.

The fundamental difference is immutable. I think I’m out of ways to help you if that still doesn’t do it.

 

[Jeannie_Lee]

I noticed mentioned above something about those advocates of NFP doing other natural alternatives to prevent pregnancy… But in the case of the Catholic Church teachings, those are immoral too, can’t have your cake and eat it too… Thats why masturbation isn’t acceptable either…

NFP is the way of practicing responsible parenting and not change or cancel out God’s divine design of our bodies… It is to respect and to protect life in many different aspects…

What happens really through ABC, or should I say what has happened? When Pope Paul VI wrote his encyclical Humane Vitae states many truths about the effects of birth control, that have come to fruition today… People where soooooo mad at Pope Paul about the birth control nonacceptance, there was an uproar in the Church, but now a days it has become quite apparent where birth control has lead our society… NFP is growing more than ever before!!

When people chose not to have children by using ABC they deny life, what happens if they end up pregnant? They often continue to deny life by abortion… It allows men and women to express themselves sexually with as many different people as they want thinking their is no consequence like, LIFE… When a life results from it, they deny it, get an abortion… Why because they are where sexually irresponsible to begin with and don’t feel responsible for this new life… Especially for those cheating spouses… ABC is and was the beginning of a massive dehumanization of life, a new outlook on LIFE… It has developed into big fat lies about conception and life within a womb… In other words ABC does not prevent abortions it has caused more abortions…

I know a little off topic, but this topic isn’t black and white, it isn’t simple… It is very in depth, because the devil is a very in depth, slick, and sly creature… He doesn’t work black and white, he works deceptively…

With time, most women get their ovulation cycle into a 3 day period… You don’t need a sign next to your bed to know that… All you need is to study your miraculous body in which the Lord created, and have a close relationship with your spouse… I think it simply comes down to… Unhealthy marriages, broken families and dead babies, because of PEOPLE’S LAZINESS and THE DECEPTION OF THE DEVIL HIMSELF…

When you know that if you have sex today, you have to be open to life, you are more open to life, you accept your decision… It isn’t that way with birth control… Fertility isn’t a malformation within our bodies that should be treated by a doctor, it is God’s beautiful design for our bodies… And you don’t have to be a Catholic to know that!!

 

[Rach620]

One of the main problems I see when these discussions occur is that many of the incidental properties of NFP and ABC are mixed in and used to draw a case for or against either method. Things such as:
Learning and communicating about the body
Respect for ones partner
Healthy sexual relationship
Abortifacient properties
Technicalities of “Openness to life” (ie both methods fail)
“One Flesh”
Etc

What I mean by this is that all methods have positive and negative properties that apply to various couples to different degrees. Many times these are not things that are inherent to the method, but more subjective attributes that are not exclusive to the method, or the couple.

Yes, all methods do have positive and negative properties. But we can order these properties based on their relative importance given the nature of sex and human sexuality. None of the reasons, taken alone, are why NFP is permitted while contraception is not. Some of the things you posted are just “perks” of relying on a method of family planning which requires constant spousal communication and which has the added benefit of not involving artificial hormones or nasty latex.

For the sake of discussion, lets take NFP forward in time a bit. We are now at the point where we can produce a sort of “NFP sensor”. Next to your bed, you can have this NFP Sensor that displays a simple red or green light to indicate whether or not sex will result in fertilization.

Such a gadget pretty much already exists. Google the ClearBlue Fertility Monitor, or LadyComp/BabyComp. I’m pretty sure the LadyComp even has the red and green lights you mentioned.

Lets assume it is very accurate, at least as accurate as the best practitioners of NFP, to mean it is basically error proof (statistically, miracles still apply ) With such advanced detection, it also allows for the minimum “abstinence” time that is required to avoid conception, meaning its accuracy allows the abstinence window to be as small as possible, lets say 3 or 4 days. (This is a guess, I don’t know what this would be, but I think this is close.) Meaning, for the large majority of the month, the light is green, and you can have sex without anxiety of an unplanned pregnancy.

Basically, what I am proposing would be the logical conclusion, or “end point” of the evolution of NFP. NFP is striving towards accuracy, simplicity, ease of practice, and social acceptance, and I would say this is as close as you could get. So, we now have a device that insures this accuracy, but without all the positive or negative “secondary issues” of current NFP practice.

Honestly, this type of technological advance is not possible unless you start messing with a woman’s biology and the build up of the hormones in her body. Whatever happens, abstinence for some length of time will be required for couples who are trying to avoid pregnancy. But for the sake of argument, we can pretend this is all possible.

My question then, is does this change anyones opinion on the benefits (or burdens) of NFP? Does this advancement make it somehow less “good” with the secondary benefits removed?

No. NFP is not justified by its “benefits”. It is permitted because it is a form of birth control that does not sterilize husband or wife and thereby prevent them from fully giving of themselves to one another in the way that God designed.

The possible spiritual benefits of spousal continence would not be removed, because abstinence would still occur, even if the period of time was lessened.

As a follow on, lets take ABC to its own logical end. Let say we also have a pill. Lets say this pill is also incredibly effective, in line with the NFP sensor. We can confirm that medically speaking, it has no side effects, and in no way harms a womans body. We can also confirm that it can not act as an abortifacient. (Lets say it forms a protein around the egg that sperm can’t penetrate. If one somehow does, you are pregnant just as you would be without this pill.) That is just an example, but the important part is that it has no side effects, is verifiably non-abortifacient, and very effective. Women return to normal fertility immediately upon discontinued use. To make it as easy as the NFP sensor, lets say you take one pill, and it remains effective until you take a second pill to reverse its effect.

This pill still sterilizes women (or men). Therein lies the problem. The fact that the Pill can be abortifacient and that it can have long-term effects on a woman’s fertility are only secondary reasons as to why a woman should not use it. The primary theological reason for why contraception is inimical to Catholic teaching on married sex is that it sterilizes the sexual act shared by husband and wife, frustrating God’s purposes for marital intimacy (uniting the spouses and procreation).

I don’t see any huge difference in these “perfected” forms of birth control. The same problems and the same benefits remain, and the fundamental difference between the two forms of spacing pregnancies certainly has not changed. The Pill is not wrong because it is “artificial,” or because it can lead to health problems for the woman. It’s wrong because it renders her sterile, making her unable to give completely of herself to her spouse as God intended. NFP is not acceptable because it’s “natural,” or “green,” or complicated, or because it sometimes means “not tonight, honey.” NFP is acceptable because it does not frustrate God’s purposes for marriage–it does not render the sex act sterile. An added bonus is that it can help us grow in virtue as spouses through periodic continence, while also being a healthy and beneficial way for a woman to manage her gynecological health.

 

[PassingThru]

No. NFP is not justified by its “benefits”. It is permitted because it is a form of birth control that does not sterilize husband or wife and thereby prevent them from fully giving of themselves to one another in the way that God designed.

The possible spiritual benefits of spousal continence would not be removed, because abstinence would still occur, even if the period of time was lessened.

This pill still sterilizes women (or men). Therein lies the problem. The primary theological reason for why contraception is inimical to Catholic teaching on married sex is that it sterilizes the sexual act shared by husband and wife, frustrating God’s purposes for marital intimacy (uniting the spouses and procreation).

I don’t see any huge difference in these “perfected” forms of birth control. The same problems and the same benefits remain, and the fundamental difference between the two forms of spacing pregnancies certainly has not changed. The Pill is not wrong because it is “artificial,” or because it can lead to health problems for the woman. It’s wrong because it renders her sterile, making her unable to give completely of herself to her spouse as God intended. NFP is not acceptable because it’s “natural,” or “green,” or complicated, or because it sometimes means “not tonight, honey.” NFP is acceptable because it does not frustrate God’s purposes for marriage–it does not render the sex act sterile. An added bonus is that it can help us grow in virtue as spouses through periodic continence, while also being a healthy and beneficial way for a woman to manage her gynecological health.

Thank you for a well rounded response, and for understanding the secondary effect of the methods.

I totally agree with most everything you wrote, as it reflects what I have understood Catholic teaching to be. However, it sounds a lot like an explanation of the “rules” but without any of the reason. Or should I say, practical application.

Your first paragraph above talks of “prevent[ing] them from fully giving of themselves to one another in the way that God designed.” I have heard that many times before. As a practical example, lets say two couples have 4 children, just turned 32, and spend the next 15 years ensuring that they have no more children. One uses this new NFP device, one uses ABC. Both know full well they have, for all practical purposes, eliminated any chance of having children. Both succeed in there goal. No secondary effects, either positive or negative for either couple. Can you explain how one couple was “fully giving” and one was not? I mean that as an honest question, as this, to me, makes no sense.

You also mentioned that ABC “sterilizes the sexual act shared by husband and wife, frustrating God’s purposes for marital intimacy (uniting the spouses and procreation).” Again, using the simple example above, how is the couple not “frustrating Gods purpose” when they expressly avoid children for 15 years, and ensure that they get to partake of the “uniting” aspect of sex while avoiding the “procreating” aspect of it. I know the Church focuses on each individual act, but isnt that missing the spirit of the law to fit the letter of the law, so to speak?

With the focus “rendering the sex act sterile”, it seems a bit of a play on words to say you can not render the sex act sterile, but you can ensure with absolute precision that all sex is functionally non-procreative. If the purpose is to “give themselves as God designed”, how can this system which expressly removes all procreation from the equation still fit the definition?

 

[Jeannie_Lee]

Are you willing to come to your conclusion from a Biblical point of view?

Or is this all about logic to you?

 

[seanflynn]

For the married couple, there are almost limitless reasons not to have be having sex at a given time. One, of the many imaginable reasons to choose to be doing something other than having sex with your spouse, is that you know that you are fertile.

As for unmarried people abusing such “redlight/greenlight” fertility technology, they are necessarily already engaged in immoral behavior. I don’t know what the point would be of figuring out if they are committing two sins or one.

As a practical example, lets say two couples have 4 children, just turned 32, and spend the next 15 years ensuring that they have no more children. One uses this new NFP device, one uses ABC. Both know full well they have, for all practical purposes, eliminated any chance of having children. Both succeed in there goal. No secondary effects, either positive or negative for either couple. Can you explain how one couple was “fully giving” and one was not? I mean that as an honest question, as this, to me, makes no sense.

There is no difference in these cases. Simply put, I have always heard not “NFP is the okay way to keep from having more children.” But instead, “NFP is the okay way to space births (or pregnancies?) for serious reasons.” NFP is not an intrinsically immoral act, such as ABC, but it can be *intended *for an immoral use. The “no kids after 32” attitude is not open to life and therefore a break in the Catholic marriage vows, however, each marital embrace is still fully giving of the self to the other.

 

[choose_to_love]

Passing - - in NFP, the couple is not rendering the sex act sterile. They are not taking any action to make the act sterile. It either is or is not sterile, they do not do anything to change that. The couple is giving all that they are capable of giving in any encounter. That is how they are giving themselves as God designed, with periodic infertility and all. Therefore, the act is still ordered to procreation, even if not actually (or functionally, to use your word) resulting in procreation.

The ABC couple is sterilizing the act. As has been pointed out several times, that is the difference. That couple is not fully giving their fertility to the other; they purposefully sterilize themselves. They reserve (remove?) a part of themselves.

It’s not a play on words, it is a real live difference in means to achieve a good end - - responsible parenthood.

(We are assuming in your example that both couples have discerned serious reasons to avoid for an extended time, right?)

 

[PassingThru]

Are you willing to come to your conclusion from a Biblical point of view?

Or is this all about logic to you?

Of course, this is all related back to religion, so yes.

I saw your previous post, but declined to get into the mud, so to speak, with linking ABC with the sexual revolution. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, but it is not my focus. Look more towards my simple example of two couples stopping after 4 children.

If you want to say it is “unitive and procreative” or “fulfilling Gods will” that is fine, but you have to explain WHY, with some form of logic, how one fits, and one does not.

I am fine with accepting Church teaching on sexual matters as a matter of faith. At the same time, if it is backed with some form of logic (unitive and procreative, for example) then this would need to be explained for it to make sense to me. (and others, I am sure)

 

[PassingThru]

For the married couple, there are almost limitless reasons not to have be having sex at a given time. One, of the many imaginable reasons to choose to be doing something other than having sex with your spouse, is that you know that you are fertile.

As for unmarried people abusing such “redlight/greenlight” fertility technology, they are necessarily already engaged in immoral behavior. I don’t know what the point would be of figuring out if they are committing two sins or one.

There is no difference in these cases. Simply put, I have always heard not “NFP is the okay way to keep from having more children.” But instead, “NFP is the okay way to space births (or pregnancies?) for serious reasons.” NFP is not an intrinsically immoral act, such as ABC, but it can be *intended *for an immoral use. The “no kids after 32” attitude is not open to life and therefore a break in the Catholic marriage vows, however, each marital embrace is still fully giving of the self to the other.

On your last point, can you expound on the logic on how this works? You say “each marital embrace is still fully giving of the self to the other.” If I can categorically ensure that sex will NOT result in a child, and I engage in specific behavior to guarantee this is result, is that still “fully giving?” Looking only at the act, it indeed has not been altered. But the couple has full knowledge that it will be a sterile act, so to speak. How is the behavior ignored in this instance while the physical act is scrutinized? Is not the mind/soul more important, or at least as important, as the means?

 

[PassingThru]

Passing - - in NFP, the couple is not rendering the sex act sterile. They are not taking any action to make the act sterile. It either is or is not sterile, they do not do anything to change that. The couple is giving all that they are capable of giving in any encounter. That is how they are giving themselves as God designed, with periodic infertility and all. Therefore, the act is still ordered to procreation, even if not actually (or functionally, to use your word) resulting in procreation.

The ABC couple is sterilizing the act. As has been pointed out several times, that is the difference. That couple is not fully giving their fertility to the other; they purposefully sterilize themselves. They reserve (remove?) a part of themselves.

It’s not a play on words, it is a real live difference in means to achieve a good end - - responsible parenthood.

(We are assuming in your example that both couples have discerned serious reasons to avoid for an extended time, right?)

Thanks Choose,

I agree with what you are saying, as it fits the definition. NFP does not alter an individual act, ABC does. However, this does not explain my question, which is how, or why, does one violate “unitive and procreative” or “frustrating Gods purpose”, or other verbiage, and one does not. We are pre-supposing that changing the act causes a violation, while changing a behavior does not. If ABC violates due to reasons x,y and z, then NFP needs to be shown to NOT voilate x,y and z for the logic to hold.

I also would have to say I disagree with the assumption that NFP is just an innocent choice in time to not have sex. It most definitely is NOT a simple one time decision, it is a precise, scientific strategy to ensure all sex between partners is effectively sterile. I think trying to portray it otherwise is misleading. That is not to say that is a bad thing, it is just a matter of clarity in wording.

 

[Jeannie_Lee]

Pass- have you noticed that it is quite common for larger Catholic families?

Your big question here is… How is ABC any different than NFP if there are periods of time in which a couple practice abstinence…

Biblically… It was already stated that abstinence is a virtue, right… The Bible says to multiply. If we use ABC we are 100% trying to prevent that, through NFP we are being 100% open to children through our physical bodies… Being open to life, and practicing abstinence at the same time… A lot of times we are week in practicing abstinence and often babies will result out of it!! But that is a part of being open to children and God’s design for our marriage…

I always look at marriage in trinities Father, Mother, and Child, but most importantly God, Husband, and Wife… We have to allow God into our relationship to make a perfect unity… When using ABC we are taking God out of our relationship, and we are taking children out of our relationship… Either way ABC causes a missing part of a Marriage, Marriage is a sacrament, it is mysterious, we literally become one body, how can we do that through ABC, how can we come into full communion with each other without God’s divine design for our union?? We can’t… NFP is giving of ourselves to our spouse 100% and to God 100%…

It is dependent upon as someone else said, a single act… EVERY ACT FOR THAT MATTER… If we CAN’T come into full communion together as God designed, we are NOT fulfilling God’s promises for our marriage or allowing God to fulfill his promises for our marriage…

If we CAN’T abstain, we are willing another life to form… If we have strength enough to abstain, we are protecting our family and future through strength in the Lord… Paul wishes that men and woman abstain from sex, but tells them to “come together” to avoid being tempted by Satan. It’s okay, in this case good to abstain from sex, but not to go too long, for fear of temptation setting in…

Think about it… It takes great strength to abstain from sex for a man at any point… But it is the hardest for women during their ovulation cycle… Not a coincidence… It truly takes great strength and dedication to abstain from these times… In other words, ITS NOT THE EASY WAY OUT!!! It’s a sacrifice, as in the case Paul is talking about.

So in conclusion it is dependent on a single act of coming together in 100% unity with your spouse and with God… If you don’t come into unity, then you don’t…

BUT the Catholic Church teaches that if there are any SELFISH MOTIVES during times of abstinence, IT IS A SIN… Like I stated before, NFP is form of responsible parenting… You can’t in clear conscience put your family into an unhealthy situation, but if it does happen, you just have to trust, God will provide.

 

[Rach620]

Your first paragraph above talks of “prevent[ing] them from fully giving of themselves to one another in the way that God designed.” I have heard that many times before. As a practical example, lets say two couples have 4 children, just turned 32, and spend the next 15 years ensuring that they have no more children. One uses this new NFP device, one uses ABC. Both know full well they have, for all practical purposes, eliminated any chance of having children. Both succeed in there goal. No secondary effects, either positive or negative for either couple. Can you explain how one couple was “fully giving” and one was not? I mean that as an honest question, as this, to me, makes no sense.

In the area of contraception, the Church has (and really can only) speak to the morality of individual acts. The Church does not speak, in the guidelines of NFP vs ABC, to the morality of a couple’s entire sex life and to the spacing of their children, but only offers guidelines which a couple can use to discern God’s will for the size of their family.

So the “full gift of self,” while it does apply to the whole of married life, when we are talking about the “full gift” of spouses’ fertility, we are talking about individual sex acts. All of the “rules” about NFP come back to the individual acts of sex a couple has. Each act must be open to God’s purposes in uniting the spouses and generating new life. God has designed our bodies to always “unite” with one another in sex, but not to always generate new life. Working with His design, we do not frustrate His purposes; working against it (as in sterilizing ourselves), we frustrate His purposes each time we have sex.

You also mentioned that ABC “sterilizes the sexual act shared by husband and wife, frustrating God’s purposes for marital intimacy (uniting the spouses and procreation).” Again, using the simple example above, how is the couple not “frustrating Gods purpose” when they expressly avoid children for 15 years, and ensure that they get to partake of the “uniting” aspect of sex while avoiding the “procreating” aspect of it. I know the Church focuses on each individual act, but isnt that missing the spirit of the law to fit the letter of the law, so to speak?

When a couple using NFP has sex, they are uniting with one another and have done nothing to that individual act to prevent pregnancy from occurring. In that act, they are not working against God’s purposes for married sexuality.

You are approaching another topic of discussion here, though–“missing the spirit of the law,” which certainly anyone can do. This is why the Church teaches that we must have “just” or “serious” reasons to avoid pregnancy, and that NFP should always be used with a spirit of shared discernment between spouses. Though I don’t think it is that common, NFP can be used for less-than-perfect reasons or with a “contraceptive mentality,” though by its nature NFP is NOT contraception and does NOT have the effects on married sex that ABC ALWAYS does.

With the focus “rendering the sex act sterile”, it seems a bit of a play on words to say you can not render the sex act sterile, but you can ensure with absolute precision that all sex is functionally non-procreative. If the purpose is to “give themselves as God designed”, how can this system which expressly removes all procreation from the equation still fit the definition?

God designed women’s bodies to not always be fertile. As long as these hypothetical future developments do not somehow change the female pattern of fertility, I can’t imagine how they would be objectively immoral. NFP keeps with His design, though yes, I would say that it’s possible to “take advantage” of His design in certain situations. We can’t say for certain if or when couples do that, as this area of discernment is left to them and God.

 

[PassingThru]

Pass- have you noticed that it is quite common for larger Catholic families?

Hmmmm, not all that common anymore, but regardless, not a distinguishing trait in this discussion.

Your big question here is… How is ABC any different than NFP if there are periods of time in which a couple practice abstinence…

Not really.

Biblically… It was already stated that abstinence is a virtue, right… The Bible says to multiply. If we use ABC we are 100% trying to prevent that, through NFP we are being 100% open to children through our physical bodies… Being open to life, and practicing abstinence at the same time… A lot of times we are week in practicing abstinence and often babies will result out of it!! But that is a part of being open to children and God’s design for our marriage…

Abstinence can be a virtue, sure. But that is not the reason NFP is acceptable. Efficacy is out of the scope of our discussion. And it is not a reason for the Churches acceptance or rejection of a birth control method.

I always look at marriage in trinities Father, Mother, and Child, but most importantly God, Husband, and Wife… We have to allow God into our relationship to make a perfect unity… When using ABC we are taking God out of our relationship, and we are taking children out of our relationship… Either way ABC causes a missing part of a Marriage, Marriage is a sacrament, it is mysterious, we literally become one body, how can we do that through ABC, how can we come into full communion with each other without God’s divine design for our union?? We can’t… NFP is giving of ourselves to our spouse 100% and to God 100%…

OK, but this is largely unsupported. How is God present in NFP but not ABC?

It is dependent upon as someone else said, a single act… EVERY ACT FOR THAT MATTER… If we CAN’T come into full communion together as God designed, we are NOT fulfilling God’s promises for our marriage or allowing God to fulfill his promises for our marriage…

If we CAN’T abstain, we are willing another life to form… If we have strength enough to abstain, we are protecting our family and future through strength in the Lord… Paul wishes that men and woman abstain from sex, but tells them to “come together” to avoid being tempted by Satan. It’s okay, in this case good to abstain from sex, but not to go too long, for fear of temptation setting in…

Think about it… It takes great strength to abstain from sex for a man at any point… But it is the hardest for women during their ovulation cycle… Not a coincidence… It truly takes great strength and dedication to abstain from these times… In other words, ITS NOT THE EASY WAY OUT!!! It’s a sacrifice, as in the case Paul is talking about.

So in conclusion it is dependent on a single act of coming together in 100% unity with your spouse and with God… If you don’t come into unity, then you don’t…

BUT the Catholic Church teaches that if there are any SELFISH MOTIVES during times of abstinence, IT IS A SIN… Like I stated before, NFP is form of responsible parenting… You can’t in clear conscience put your family into an unhealthy situation, but if it does happen, you just have to trust, God will provide.

Again, the sacrificial nature of abstinence is not what makes NFP acceptable, from what I have learned. If you can tie your comments to any specifics of NFP or ABC, it would help in establishing a distinction between the two.

 

[Rach620]

If ABC violates due to reasons x,y and z, then NFP needs to be shown to NOT voilate x,y and z for the logic to hold.

ABC violates the moral law because in using it spouses choose to sterilize themselves and/or the sex act itself. NFP does not violate the moral law because in using it the spouses do not choose to sterilize themselves and/or the sex act itself.

For a bit more illustration–I am naturally infertile all of the time. I don’t think it is going to be possible for me to get pregnant unless I pursue more medical treatment. I chart NFP, and sometimes observe signs of fertility. When my husband and I have sex during those “fertile” times, I am giving ALL of my fertility at that time, whatever it may be. When we have sex any other time and we know it is highly unlikely that we will conceive, we still are offering our fertility to one another, the fertility (or lack thereof) that God designed for us to have. Just because it is almost impossible for new life to be generated from that act does not mean that it is immoral for us to have sex or that we have done anything to render it sterile. It is sterile, but not by our choosing.