Concept of Conception Perfection - Your thoughts

[PassingThru]

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.

Hmmm. Why can the Church only speak to individual acts? That seems a bit arbitrary. Or a dodge.

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.

Again, why the artificial limit to only an instance in time? Why does the “full gift of self” only apply to snippets of time?

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.

I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Depending on how you define “Gods purpose for sexuality” I think NFP can just as easily violate this purpose. It is like volunteering at a soup kitchen. I could proudly proclaim that I am following Church guidance with my works by heading down to the shelter 3 times a week. Now, I may arrive after the soup kitchen closes, and head straight back home, but, on an individual level my “act” was correctly ordered. It is not my design that the kitchen closes at 8pm, I just take advantage of that information. (Crude, yes, but accurate)

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.

What are these effects that “ALWAYS” happen?

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.

I guess at the end of the day, if you feel that active participation in birth control (ABC) is on its own merit a violation, that is a theological belief that can not be challenged. Somehow, taking advantage of fertility to achieve the same ends has been accepted. This on its own is also fine. However, I still fail to see in an objective fashion how the logic against ABC can not apply to NFP. Anytime I see a reason “X” to reject ABC, I see it apply just as easily applied to NFP. Only with an arbitrary belief in the sanctity of the “act” while avoiding the sanctity of sexuality as a whole does it stand on its own, in my mind.

 

[PassingThru]

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.

Hmmm, in my mind, its a play on words. You are not sterilizing a sex act, you are ensuring a sterile sex act. How this passes as not violating this moral law, is still not clear to me.

The intentional lack of action can be just as immoral as an intentional act. How this is overlooked, I do not understand. Can you expound on the moral difference between ensuring sterility and producing sterility?

Using my crude soup kitchen example, I could apply this logic to say I volunteer 3 times a week, even though I have never served a single soul a meal. Now, I know this is patently false in reality, but it is none the less true.

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.

I am sorry to hear that! I agree with what you are saying, but it seems not to apply. Meaning, it does not answer the question: “If I intentionally time sex with my husband to ensure sterility, is this a violation?” (Using any of the arguments previously mentioned) This always seems to rely on a pre-supposed rejection of active sterility and acceptance of timed sterility.

 

[Rach620]

Hmmm. Why can the Church only speak to individual acts? That seems a bit arbitrary. Or a dodge.

The entire realm of moral theology treats the morality of acts. It asks, regarding a specific act, whether an act is sinful in its object, intention, or circumstances. You can’t determine the sinfulness of a “non-act”. Contracepting an act of sex is an act. Not having sex is not an act.

Again, why the artificial limit to only an instance in time? Why does the “full gift of self” only apply to snippets of time?

Needing to give a full gift of one’s self is not the objective moral law at stake here–I’m sorry if I gave that impression. Respecting both of God’s purposes for married sex (unitive and procreative) is the moral law at stake. Respect for these purposes can only really be established in individual sexual acts. You think it’s an “artificial limit,” but I think it’s the only way to make sense of it. I can say that I respect God’s purposes for married sex all day long, but unless I’m married and having sex that particular moral law has nothing to do with me. If I am married and am having sex, I need to be sure that my actions do not frustrate these purposes.

Also, if you notice what I said, I did say that the “full gift of self” does apply to the whole of spouses’ married life. The two are to become one flesh, and a life of discernment regarding how they are to be stewards of God’s gifts in their life is absolutely necessary. This is to be taken in addition to the moral law regarding the unitive and procreative purposes of sex, however, not in replacement of it.

I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. Depending on how you define “Gods purpose for sexuality” I think NFP can just as easily violate this purpose.

I have defined God’s purposes for sex: uniting spouses and generating new life. God designed these purposes, and He designed our bodies to fulfill them in certain ways. How does NFP lead the spouses to violate either the unitive or the procreative purpose? What are they doing, in that sex act, in your eyes, to prevent themselves from being united fully or to prevent new life from being created?

It is like volunteering at a soup kitchen. I could proudly proclaim that I am following Church guidance with my works by heading down to the shelter 3 times a week. Now, I may arrive after the soup kitchen closes, and head straight back home, but, on an individual level my “act” was correctly ordered. It is not my design that the kitchen closes at 8pm, I just take advantage of that information. (Crude, yes, but accurate)

I see your point. It gets more at the intentions of NFP users and the need for discernment than it does on the objective differences between NFP and ABC, though.

A person who is always going to a soup kitchen after it closes must really not want to associate with the poor, we’re led to believe by this example. If God has led them to a vocation in which they are to serve the poor, they do not seem to be following His will. In and of itself, though, there is nothing immoral about going to a soup kitchen after it has closed. They probably need to pray more about God’s will for their life and ask how they are to follow His will in the hours they serve at the soup kitchen. They need to look at their reasons for doing this and see if they are sufficient enough to avoid serving God’s people in this way.

Similarly, a married couple who always uses NFP to avoid pregnancy must really not want to have a child. If God has led them to a vocation in which they are to “welcome children lovingly as gifts from God,” marriage, they do not seem to be following His will in this attitude. In and of itself, though, there is nothing immoral about having sex only when it is least likely to result in conception. They probably need to pray more about God’s will for their marriage and ask how they are to follow His will in their family life and in the spacing of their children. They need to look at their reasons for avoiding pregnancy and ask if they are sufficient enough to avoid serving Him in this way.

So yes, one can fail to follow Christ as closely as they might (commit a sin of omission) in avoiding pregnancy for less than serious reasons while using NFP. But this does not lead them to commit the sin of contraception, nor does it prove that NFP is the moral equivalent of ABC. NFP is still properly ordered and does not frustrate God’s design for married sexuality. It is up to individual spouses to discern how they are called to use it to serve God and His Kingdom.

What are these effects that “ALWAYS” happen?

Contraception always sterilizes the husband, the wife, or the act itself. A couple using NFP offers their natural, God-designed fertility to one another, and does nothing to sterilize the act or themselves. Incidentally, the Church’s teachings on the procreative purpose of sex are the main reason why different kinds of sexual activity (such as oral sex to completion) are considered illicit.

 

[Rach620]

Originally Posted by Rach620
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.
Hmmm, in my mind, its a play on words. You are not sterilizing a sex act, you are ensuring a sterile sex act. How this passes as not violating this moral law, is still not clear to me.

As an NFP user, I cannot ensure a sterile sex act. I can observe how my body works and gauge how likely conception is to take place. I still am doing nothing to alter the functioning of my fertility as God designed it when He created men and women.

Do you really not see a difference between a woman who has taken the pill to prevent ovulation and a woman who observes her body to see when ovulation is taking place? Or between a man who has sex with his wife when he knows she is naturally infertile, and the man who has had a vasectomy who has sex with his wife during the fertile period? In each case, one person has voluntarily sterilized themselves while the other has observed God’s design of the human body and chosen to behave accordingly.

The intentional lack of action can be just as immoral as an intentional act. How this is overlooked, I do not understand. Can you expound on the moral difference between ensuring sterility and producing sterility?

Yes, the intentional lack of an action can constitute a sin of omission, but only when a person is violating a moral law in choosing not to act. There is no moral law which states that we must have sex with certain frequency or at certain times, so it is not immoral to choose not to have sex. Contracepting, on the other hand, always violates the moral law governing sex, that it should always unite spouses and allow for procreation.

I am sorry to hear that! I agree with what you are saying, but it seems not to apply. Meaning, it does not answer the question: “If I intentionally time sex with my husband to ensure sterility, is this a violation?” (Using any of the arguments previously mentioned) This always seems to rely on a pre-supposed rejection of active sterility and acceptance of timed sterility.

I don’t see how “permanent” infertility is all that different from “periodic” infertility experienced by most women, from a moral perspective. In each case, a woman is doing nothing to bring such an experience on herself. If I am not “frustrating God’s purposes for sex” even as I am for all intents and purposes infertile, how is another woman, naturally infertile and having sex with her husband, “frustrating God’s purposes for sex”?

Again, to answer the question about “timing” sex–there is no moral law that says married couples must have sex at certain times. There is no “act” to judge when a couple chooses to watch Letterman instead of make love. They are certainly not guilty of contraception, unless you want to compare a tv in the bedroom to a condom. And I have left ample room in my posts for the possibility that a married couple, even one using NFP, CAN be sinning (albeit not the sin of contraception) in not being as open to life and God’s plan for their families as they ought to be. But in comparing NFP and ABC we can only really compare the morality of the individual sex acts we are talking about, and the discussion of the discernment process behind spacing children is set to the side, to be discussed in other avenues.

 

[Jeannie_Lee]

How is God present in NFP but not ABC?

Through NFP we are allowing God his full bodily design to fulfill the design of our marriage… Quite simply, if we use ABC we are NOT allowing God our natural body’s design to fulfill the design of our marriage…

We are denying God, our bodies as he designed them when using ABC…

 

[PassingThru]

The entire realm of moral theology treats the morality of acts. It asks, regarding a specific act, whether an act is sinful in its object, intention, or circumstances. You can’t determine the sinfulness of a “non-act”. Contracepting an act of sex is an act. Not having sex is not an act.

I would have to disagree. ABC is an act, NFP is an act. You are choosing to only look at the specific instance of choosing not to have sex as the only characteristic of NFP, which I disagree with. NFP is a system that goes far beyond one night of abstinence. The lack of action does not re categorize NFP (to me). The intention and circumstance are the same, it is the object that is different. I could argue that “persistent intentional avoidance of sex during fertile periods to ensure sterile sex” is an act that violates moral law. I would then have to prove this. Intentional non-action does not make it not-an-act.

Respecting both of God’s purposes for married sex (unitive and procreative) is the moral law at stake. Respect for these purposes can only really be established in individual sexual acts. You think it’s an “artificial limit,” but I think it’s the only way to make sense of it.

Why? That does not answer why you can only look at one “act” in a vacuum. It is as much of a non-answer as saying “Respect for these purposes can only really be established in the sexual behavior of married life.” If I do not have to define it, my statement is as good as yours!

I have defined God’s purposes for sex: uniting spouses and generating new life. God designed these purposes, and He designed our bodies to fulfill them in certain ways. How does NFP lead the spouses to violate either the unitive or the procreative purpose? What are they doing, in that sex act, in your eyes, to prevent themselves from being united fully or to prevent new life from being created?

Same point. Again, I am starting in neutral on both positions (even though you probably see otherwise). If a distinction is to be made, it has to stand on its own. The only way this makes sense is if you limit your timeframe, and assume ABC as wrong. Until this can be somehow established, you have a catch 22. NFP eliminates procreation, this can not be denied. With your limited timeframe, you are right. Without it, you are wrong.

Similarly, a married couple who always uses NFP to avoid pregnancy must really not want to have a child. If God has led them to a vocation in which they are to “welcome children lovingly as gifts from God,” marriage, they do not seem to be following His will in this attitude. In and of itself, though, there is nothing immoral about having sex only when it is least likely to result in conception. They probably need to pray more about God’s will for their marriage and ask how they are to follow His will in their family life and in the spacing of their children. They need to look at their reasons for avoiding pregnancy and ask if they are sufficient enough to avoid serving Him in this way.

This sounds like trying to define when/how many children is “right”. I think the first sentence is accurate. When is that first sentence wrong? (Aside from using it specifically in order to have children, which is a separate case altogether).

NFP is still properly ordered and does not frustrate God’s design for married sexuality. It is up to individual spouses to discern how they are called to use it to serve God and His Kingdom.

Same assumption.

Contraception always sterilizes the husband, the wife, or the act itself. A couple using NFP offers their natural, God-designed fertility to one another, and does nothing to sterilize the act or themselves.

Again, if you intentionally withhold fertile sex, I would say that is not “natural, God-designed [giving of fertility]” I can not prove this, but you have not proven the opposite. NFP, by definition, is witholding fertility. I can not see how this is not the case.

Continued…

 

[PassingThru]

…continued…

As an NFP user, I cannot ensure a sterile sex act.

Technically, you are correct. But, you can come as close as possible. This is a play on words, as correctly practiced, you get as close as mathematically possible to this goal. Do you see how that can look like a dodge? You can’t ensure it, but you can strive for it.

Do you really not see a difference between a woman who has taken the pill to prevent ovulation and a woman who observes her body to see when ovulation is taking place? Or between a man who has sex with his wife when he knows she is naturally infertile, and the man who has had a vasectomy who has sex with his wife during the fertile period? In each case, one person has voluntarily sterilized themselves while the other has observed God’s design of the human body and chosen to behave accordingly.

There is obviously a vast technical difference. Your last sentence sums it up, however. “Observed Gods design and behaved accordingly?!?!?!” You have already concluded the answer with that one! You are defining NFP as correct in order to define how NFP is correct.

There is no moral law which states that we must have sex with certain frequency or at certain times, so it is not immoral to choose not to have sex.

True, no moral law determining when to have sex. And it is not immoral to choose not to have sex. However, that is not what NFP is. See your next statement:

Contracepting, on the other hand, always violates the moral law governing sex, that it should always unite spouses and allow for procreation.

By definition, correctly practiced NFP does NOT allow for procreation. So, on an individual instance for one specific decision I agree, but for a systematic plan practiced over time, I disagree. Somehow succussful practice of NFP has to be shown to be open to life, even though by definition it is not. Or, ABC, on its own, has to be demonstrably immoral. However, every reason given can apply to NFP. The reason you dont see it this way is you assume ABC is immoral. That is a circular argument.

I don’t see how “permanent” infertility is all that different from “periodic” infertility experienced by most women, from a moral perspective. In each case, a woman is doing nothing to bring such an experience on herself. If I am not “frustrating God’s purposes for sex” even as I am for all intents and purposes infertile, how is another woman, naturally infertile and having sex with her husband, “frustrating God’s purposes for sex”?

I think it is easy to see, actually. You are playing no role in your infertility whatsoever. A woman practicing NFP is, again, bringing infertility on herself. Have sex during fertility, and bam, baby. I think you were mixing intents by drawing a parallel from medical infertility to voluntary abstinence? I don’t see how they are in the same ballpark, actually.

 

[PassingThru]

I just wanted to say, I do not want this to sound like a “pro-ABC” argument. Its not really important whether ABC is licit or not. If you disagree with ABC, I have no real qualms about it. I think NFP is, objectively, the best option available to prevent pregnancy. If you are OK with the trials of its use, it has many upsides that cannot be replicated with ABC.

As I said earlier, on an academic level, I fail to see enough of a distinction between the two to draw any firm conclusions. As soon as I see any logic put to paper, the logic seems to fail. I see things along the lines of:

ABC > Wrong > Moral Law > Inhibits Purpose of Sex > Non-procreatve

“>” in this case means “stems from”

Anytime I see this line of reasoning, it takes some mental gymnastics to ensure NFP does not fall in the same trap. It usually takes form in a discussion of Natural Law, or alterations of timeframes or defining acts in restrictive ways.

I think for me it is a matter of faith, just as we do not try and pigeon hole the concept of God to arbitrary definitions. I think faith I can live with. Its the logic that fails me…

 

[Rach620]

Originally Posted by Rach620
The entire realm of moral theology treats the morality of acts. It asks, regarding a specific act, whether an act is sinful in its object, intention, or circumstances. You can’t determine the sinfulness of a “non-act”. Contracepting an act of sex is an act. Not having sex is not an act.
I would have to disagree. ABC is an act, NFP is an act.

I just stated the parameters of moral theology. Moral theology treats acts, not non-acts. Some acts are sets of other acts.

You are choosing to only look at the specific instance of choosing not to have sex as the only characteristic of NFP, which I disagree with. NFP is a system that goes far beyond one night of abstinence. The lack of action does not re categorize NFP (to me). The intention and circumstance are the same, it is the object that is different. I could argue that “persistent intentional avoidance of sex during fertile periods to ensure sterile sex” is an act that violates moral law. I would then have to prove this. Intentional non-action does not make it not-an-act.

You have to compare a contracepted sex act with an NFP sex act, not a contracepted sex act with not having sex.

In the case of ABC, let’s use the Pill as an example, the act is sterilizing a woman by preventing ovulation. The acts this includes are seeking contraceptives from the doctor, filling a prescription for the Pill, taking the Pill daily so as to prevent ovulation, and having sex which can be said to be “contracepted” because of the woman’s self-induced sterilization and her intent to prevent pregnancy by use of the Pill. The important issue here is what the couple has done to affect the sex act–and it seems to me that they have done quite a bit.

In the case of NFP, the overall act is…sleeping or watching Letterman instead of having sex? We can look at the individual NFP acts which led to this decision. A couple seeks NFP instruction, charts daily, decides to avoid pregnancy based on the woman’s signs, the woman communicates her fertility each day to her spouse, and in the end they choose not to have sex on a day that the woman is fertile. So the important issue here is what the couple has done to affect the sex act–and it seems to me that they have not even had sex at all.

If you compare a contracepted sex act with an NFP sex act, it’s easy to see that the couple has not done anything at all to prevent conception from taking place in the NFP users’ act. If the act does not result in conception, it is because it was naturally sterile, not because they did anything to cause it to be sterile.

Using the Pill is also a “system” or “regimen” that goes far beyond one night of abstinence, but that is irrelevant. It’s not that the “lack of action” puts NFP in a different category, it’s that a lack of action means there is nothing morally to judge. We can only morally judge the times a couple has sex, and there is nothing objectively disordered with having sex with one’s spouse when they happen to be naturally infertile, or with not having sex with them at all. We know this not because we make it up, but because this is how God created the female body to function.

You could argue that “persistent intentional avoidance of sex during fertile periods to ensure sterile sex” is an act that violates moral law, but I don’t see any part of the moral law governing sex that bears this out. Where does the moral law command that sex during the fertile period must take place? If God wanted women to always be fertile, just like men are, He would have designed us that way. And if that were the case, I’d be right there with you insisting that NFP is unacceptable because God obviously intends for women to get pregnant every time they have sex.

Originally Posted by Rach620 Respecting both of God’s purposes for married sex (unitive and procreative) is the moral law at stake. Respect for these purposes can only really be established in individual sexual acts. You think it’s an “artificial limit,” but I think it’s the only way to make sense of it.
Why? That does not answer why you can only look at one “act” in a vacuum. It is as much of a non-answer as saying “Respect for these purposes can only really be established in the sexual behavior of married life.”

All of moral theology only attempts to treat individual acts. When Catholics confess their sins, they confess individual acts and the number of times they committed those sins, not the general tendency to sin. I honestly cannot understand how one even begins to explain sexual morality without talking about the morality of individual acts. This explains the nonsense behind a lot of the sexual morality of some Christians, who say that as long as it is loving, married couples are permitted to engage in whatever sexual intimacy they desire. Obviously the “loving” criterion is about as vague as the “life-giving over the entirety of the marriage” criterion, so in the end we’re left with nothing. So yes, we must look at individual “acts,” even if that strikes us as “in a vacuum”. It’s certainly not “in a vacuum” for the couples going through it, and rather should take place in the whole fabric of their married life.

 

[Rach620]

The only way this makes sense is if you limit your timeframe, and assume ABC as wrong. Until this can be somehow established, you have a catch 22. NFP eliminates procreation, this can not be denied. With your limited timeframe, you are right. Without it, you are wrong.

Again, my “limited timeframe” is how all of moral theology has historically functioned, especially Catholic moral theology. It seems to me that you are taking issue with moral theology as a whole. The burden of proof is not on the Church and its moral theologians to re-justify its approach to moral theology with each new issue that arises.

You’re basically saying that the sex life shared by a couple is morally neutral in this area until their married life is over, correct? As long as they get one kid in there, or have one act of unprotected sex at some point, all is well? The attitude is basically that we are to disregard moral laws, as long as we plan to follow them at some point.

This sounds like trying to define when/how many children is “right”.

I cannot define that–that is up to a married couple to discern. Again, Catholic married couples vow to “welcome children lovingly as gifts from God,” and they should always be striving to uphold that vow. The Church teaches that we must have “serious” reasons to avoid pregnancy. But none of this, as I said, has any bearing on the morality of sex during the infertile period while using NFP. Even the “worst” reasons for using NFP to avoid do not turn sex between a husband and wife into an objectively immoral act.

I think the first sentence is accurate. When is that first sentence wrong?

It’s wrong when couples are being called by God to have another child and they ignore His call. But again, even ignoring God’s call does not mean that they are sterilizing themselves or their sexual intimacy. Different can of worms.

Again, if you intentionally withhold fertile sex, I would say that is not “natural, God-designed [giving of fertility]” I can not prove this, but you have not proven the opposite. NFP, by definition, is witholding fertility. I can not see how this is not the case./QUOTE]
Again, it makes no sense to compare not having sex or “withholding fertile sex” with having contracepted sex. When an NFP using couple DOES have sex, they are having sex that is naturally fertile. When I have sex with my husband, even though it is likely we will not conceive unless I take certain medications, we are having sex that is naturally fertile. It is as fertile as God designed it to be at that time, and apparently that is all God demands of us.
PassingThru;6675569:

Originally Posted by Rach620: As an NFP user, I cannot ensure a sterile sex act.
Technically, you are correct. But, you can come as close as possible. This is a play on words, as correctly practiced, you get as close as mathematically possible to this goal. Do you see how that can look like a dodge? You can’t ensure it, but you can strive for it.

It’s not a play on words. The point is that I cannot do anything to make myself sterile or to ensure that I am sterile. I have sex with my husband and am doing nothing to prevent sperm from reaching egg. God is the one who has designed me to be fertile or infertile–my infertility is not self-inflicted, and I do nothing to ensure that it stays either way. I just work with what is observed–like a person trying to lose weight by avoiding carbs.

Your last sentence sums it up, however. “Observed Gods design and behaved accordingly?!?!?!” You have already concluded the answer with that one! You are defining NFP as correct in order to define how NFP is correct.

I don’t see how I defined NFP as correct…? NFP involves observing a woman’s natural fertility (ie, God’s design), and behaving in accord with the couple’s intentions with regard to those observations. The Pill involves altering a woman’s natural fertility in a way that NFP clearly does not.

True, no moral law determining when to have sex. And it is not immoral to choose not to have sex. However, that is not what NFP is.

Yes, NFP is choosing not to have sex. Not forever, but choosing not to have sex at certain times.

 

[Rach620]

Contracepting, on the other hand, always violates the moral law governing sex, that it should always unite spouses and allow for procreation.
By definition, correctly practiced NFP does NOT allow for procreation.

How does it not? NFP allows sperm to meet egg in that act, if it is possible. Since it is not possible for sperm to always meet egg, and since it is not possible for married couples to ensure that sperm meets egg, they have no moral responsibility in this regard beyond allowing for procreation to occur. Even if the likelihood of conception taking place is slim to none, that doesn’t all of a sudden make the responsibility for that statistical (im)possibility fall to the couple.

Somehow succussful practice of NFP has to be shown to be open to life, even though by definition it is not. Or, ABC, on its own, has to be demonstrably immoral. However, every reason given can apply to NFP. The reason you dont see it this way is you assume ABC is immoral. That is a circular argument.

The sex of NFP couples is open to life, by definition–no barriers, no self-inflicted sterility. The overall sex life of NFP couples can be open to life if the couples have an active prayer life and are discerning how they are called by God to space their children.

I don’t see how the argument I have made assumes ABC is immoral. I have spoken of the morality of individual acts, and how the moral law dealing with them requires that the couples do not frustrate the unitive and procreative purposes of sex in committing these acts. If we look at NFP users’ acts, we see that they are open to life–they have not done anything to frustrate the procreative purpose or potential of that act, in that act, or to that act. If we look at contracepted acts, we see that they are not open to life because they have deliberately frustrated the procreative purpose or potential of the act/in the act/to the act by rendering themselves/the act sterile.

I don’t see the circular logic here. The way we judge the morality of sex acts in this area is by determining whether the procreative potential exists, inasmuch as the couple can possibly be responsible for ensuring such potential. Using NFP to conceive, I cannot force myself to be fertile, just as a woman using NFP to avoid pregnancy cannot force herself to be sterile. What she can do is ensure that every time she has sex with her husband, whatever the timing, she is offering all of her natural fertility to him, as God intended.

I think it is easy to see, actually. You are playing no role in your infertility whatsoever. A woman practicing NFP is, again, bringing infertility on herself.

Um, no. Every woman experiences a period of infertility in every cycle. That’s the way we’re made. In what way do you think she is “bringing infertility on herself”? It’s about as impossible to control as her period. Do you see no difference between a woman on the Pill who is “bringing infertility on herself” and a woman who observes her own naturally-occurring infertility?

As I said earlier, on an academic level, I fail to see enough of a distinction between the two to draw any firm conclusions. As soon as I see any logic put to paper, the logic seems to fail. I see things along the lines of:

ABC > Wrong > Moral Law > Inhibits Purpose of Sex > Non-procreatve

“>” in this case means “stems from”

Anytime I see this line of reasoning, it takes some mental gymnastics to ensure NFP does not fall in the same trap. It usually takes form in a discussion of Natural Law, or alterations of timeframes or defining acts in restrictive ways.

I think for me it is a matter of faith, just as we do not try and pigeon hole the concept of God to arbitrary definitions. I think faith I can live with. Its the logic that fails me…

I honestly think that some of your concerns with the “logic” behind the Catholic Church’s teaching on birth control could be alleviated if you studied Catholic moral theology in general. It’s quite hard to approach the Church’s line of thinking on this issue without a firm foundation in the way the Church reasons on these sorts of issues.

 

[PassingThru]

OK, we disagree.

At the end of the day, I still fail to see a distinction.

Throughout all your posts, you rely on the morality of each act of NFP while ignoring the process. This, is a dodge. I completely agree that ABC violates this act. NFP does not. Somehow, you are saying that “moral law” only applies to an individual act, but not a planned non-action, or a system, or a set of acts. Great. I am no theologian, but that sounds like yet another dodge. I have never heard of such an arbitrary limitation.

It still looks like mental gymnastics. I fully accept that ABC could be illicit, and NFP can be seen as licit. But your limits on basic logic requires too many astrix for my taste. Somehow you want me to agree that intentionally having sex during infertile times for years or decades with no hope of pregnancy is somehow open to life. I do not. This is simple logic that needs no advanced degree.

Look at it this way. If we were taking some of the basic logic of ABC and NFP and explained to a 10 year old, they would see things as they are. You are saying it is the other way. You are saying that going to the soup kitchen intentionally at 8pm qualifies as volunteering. I say it is not. You say ignore everything but showing up at the kitchen. I can’t. Simple as that.

We disagree.

 

[Rach620]

Throughout all your posts, you rely on the morality of each act of NFP while ignoring the process. This, is a dodge. I completely agree that ABC violates this act. NFP does not. Somehow, you are saying that “moral law” only applies to an individual act, but not a planned non-action, or a system, or a set of acts. Great. I am no theologian, but that sounds like yet another dodge. I have never heard of such an arbitrary limitation.

I have repeatedly on this thread stated clearly that there is a need for Catholic married couples using NFP to integrate their decision of using NFP to avoid pregnancy into an active prayer life and discernment of God’s will for their marriage. I have said that even NFP users can have a “dangerous contraceptive mentality” (as JP2 would call it) with regard to their openness to life overall in their use of NFP to avoid pregnancy. They can be led to sin.

However, what is clear is that this sin of omission, of closing oneself off to God in this area of their lives, is not the same as the sin of contraception. But when the rubber hits the road and we are looking at the individual acts of sex committed by that NFP using couple, even the couple that may not be perfectly following God’s will for their family, there is nothing in their acts of sex that we can say is actively frustrating God’s purposes for sex. They have done nothing to alter it.

The Church permits “the regulation of births,” and some Catholics would even say it encourages it. Responsible “family planning” is viewed as a good. But it must be accomplished by “good” means, in a way that does not alter sex as God intended it. NFP is a moral way of accomplishing the regulation of births for the reasons I have stated, while contraception is not. Your view seems to be “the end justifies the means,” but that is not the case with this debate. The means are important, and examining them is key.

Somehow you want me to agree that intentionally having sex during infertile times for years or decades with no hope of pregnancy is somehow open to life. I do not. This is simple logic that needs no advanced degree.

A couple that uses NFP to avoid pregnancy for years or decades with no hope of pregnancy might not be open to life. I fully admit that. They could be using licit means (NFP) to achieve an illicit end (avoiding pregnancy for less-than-serious reasons). But just because someone does use NFP to avoid pregnancy for years or decades does not mean that they are sinning, nor does it somehow equate their behavior with frustrating God’s purposes for sex at each and every act as the contraceptive user does.

 

[Rach620]

Look at it this way. If we were taking some of the basic logic of ABC and NFP and explained to a 10 year old, they would see things as they are. You are saying it is the other way. You are saying that going to the soup kitchen intentionally at 8pm qualifies as volunteering. I say it is not. You say ignore everything but showing up at the kitchen. I can’t. Simple as that.

We disagree.

Yes, we disagree. I’m just not sure you’re trying to understand what the Church teaches on the Church’s grounds. As I said earlier, without a firm understanding of how moral theology works (ie, it assesses the sinfulness of specific acts) it’s difficult to understand the moral reasoning behind the prohibition on contraception (or the prohibition on oral sex, gay sex, or premarital sex, for that matter). This is why so many Catholics, in seeking to affirm NFP, suggest reasons for the use of NFP that don’t address the fundamental moral question at hand (these are the reasons you addressed in your OP–the value of abstinence, the health factor, the need for spousal communication).

In my view, your understanding of “the way things are” misses the point. It looks at a couple’s overall sex life or overall marriage and sees that in the end an NFP using couple and ABC using couple might accomplish the same thing. Sure, fine, they might. But it does not address the fundamental moral question at hand, and seems to ignore the individual acts of sex rather than looking to them as really where these teachings “come to life”.

And no, I did not say that going to the soup kitchen at 8pm qualifies as volunteering.

A person who is always going to a soup kitchen after it closes must really not want to associate with the poor, we’re led to believe by this example. If God has led them to a vocation in which they are to serve the poor, they do not seem to be following His will. In and of itself, though, there is nothing immoral about going to a soup kitchen after it has closed. They probably need to pray more about God’s will for their life and ask how they are to follow His will in the hours they serve at the soup kitchen. They need to look at their reasons for doing this and see if they are sufficient enough to avoid serving God’s people in this way.

Similarly, a married couple who always uses NFP to avoid pregnancy must really not want to have a child. If God has led them to a vocation in which they are to “welcome children lovingly as gifts from God,” marriage, they do not seem to be following His will in this attitude. In and of itself, though, there is nothing immoral about having sex only when it is least likely to result in conception. They probably need to pray more about God’s will for their marriage and ask how they are to follow His will in their family life and in the spacing of their children. They need to look at their reasons for avoiding pregnancy and ask if they are sufficient enough to avoid serving Him in this way.

The difference here is in what I bolded. There is nothing sinful about going to a soup kitchen after it has closed. There is something wrong, however, if someone has discerned a call from God to serve the poor and they intentionally avoid doing so. In the end, they are committing a sin by not following God’s will, not by showing up to the soup kitchen late.

It’s all about discernment. A married couple can sin when they are avoiding pregnancy without serious reason, but this sin is not the same as the sin of contraception. Two different sins.

 

[seanflynn]

Again, if you intentionally withhold fertile sex, I would say that is not “natural, God-designed [giving of fertility]” I can not prove this, but you have not proven the opposite. NFP, by definition, is witholding fertility. I can not see how this is not the case.

One appropriate use of NFP is not witholding fertility, but delaying the gift of fertility. As an analogy: My mother asks me to take out the trash. I say I’ll do it. One minute later, I have not done it yet, but I still plan to. At this point, am I already a liar because of my delayed response? Am I morally culpable? Or am I free to delay the fulfillment of my promise for serious reasons?

At their wedding, a couple make a vow to be open to life and accept children as gifts from God. One month later, they have been fetile, and not concieved yet, but still plan to. At this point, are they already breaking their vows?

Also, NFP is not, by definition, witholding fertility. It is, by definition, making yourself aware of the details of fetility. You are thinking of NFA (Natural Family Avoiding).

The choice to abstain, or “withold fertility,” can be made. So too can the choice to engage in the marital act while fertile. I think every person posting in response to you, passingthru, has stipulated, and not grudgingly, that NFP *can *be abused to prevent any and all conceptions by a couple. Are you saying that this possibility/temptation makes it morally equal to artificial contraception?

Are you saying that we would be better of, morally speaking, to use no cotraception, and also not to make ourselves aware of the fertile times, so we are not tempted to abstain during them if we really do desire to have sex?

I hope you are not reading a smug, “these are obviously horribly stupid postions to take” tone from my questions. I genuinely want to know. If you could be convinced, I think it helps me to have a better idea of how you currently understand things.

I think your question has basically always been: “How are ABC and NFP not morally equivalent when they are *really *doing the same thing?” I think the postition of the Church is that they are not really doing the same thing. Rach’s overview of the process of moral theology is not a dodge, but really, how we Catholics look at morality (or should). Would “What’s the difference between *sterilized *intercourse and *sterile *intercourse?” be synonymous with your initial question? If so, the answer lies in the “ized.” It’s as simple, and as difficult, as that. In the case of ABC, someone takes action to sterilize a sexual act. In the case of NFP, no one takes action to sterilize any sexual acts.

 

[PassingThru]

I have repeatedly on this thread stated clearly that there is a need for Catholic married couples using NFP to integrate their decision of using NFP to avoid pregnancy into an active prayer life and discernment of God’s will for their marriage. I have said that even NFP users can have a “dangerous contraceptive mentality” (as JP2 would call it) with regard to their openness to life overall in their use of NFP to avoid pregnancy. They can be led to sin.

For the sake of this discussion, we have to treat both cases as equals. Lets just assume both have legit reasons for avoiding pregnancy. I would rather not start down the road of assigning “active prayer life and discernment of Gods will” exclusively to either group. This can be true or not true in either case.

However, what is clear is that this sin of omission, of closing oneself off to God in this area of their lives, is not the same as the sin of contraception. But when the rubber hits the road and we are looking at the individual acts of sex committed by that NFP using couple, even the couple that may not be perfectly following God’s will for their family, there is nothing in their acts of sex that we can say is actively frustrating God’s purposes for sex. They have done nothing to alter it.

Absolutely. Again for the sake of simplicity, lets assume that the act of ABC is illicit. We seem to be getting stuck on the fact that the act of ABC is illicit and the act of having/not having sex is licit. I fully acquiesce this point. I am asking to move past it.

The Church permits “the regulation of births,” and some Catholics would even say it encourages it. Responsible “family planning” is viewed as a good. But it must be accomplished by “good” means, in a way that does not alter sex as God intended it. NFP is a moral way of accomplishing the regulation of births for the reasons I have stated, while contraception is not. Your view seems to be “the end justifies the means,” but that is not the case with this debate. The means are important, and examining them is key.

Not exactly. Means are important, but they are not the only thing. More on that later…

A couple that uses NFP to avoid pregnancy for years or decades with no hope of pregnancy might not be open to life. I fully admit that.

I would amend this to say “They are not open to life”. The successful practice of NFP is precisely hinged on this. If you are proposing otherwise, in what way are they open to life?

But just because someone does use NFP to avoid pregnancy for years or decades does not mean that they are sinning, nor does it somehow equate their behavior with frustrating God’s purposes for sex at each and every act as the contraceptive user does.

I agree with respect to ABC, as I said above, ABC for this discussion is by definition illicit. However, the correct practice of NFP would define every act of sex would be defined by its ability or lack of ability to produce children. You are basically saying some of these would not “frustrate Gods purpose” or would be “open to life”, or which ever language you wish to choose. If we know every act is effectively sterile, at what times would these acts be “open to life?”

In my view, your understanding of “the way things are” misses the point. It looks at a couple’s overall sex life or overall marriage and sees that in the end an NFP using couple and ABC using couple might accomplish the same thing. Sure, fine, they might.

No, they DO accomplish the same thing. This is not related to whether ABC is licit or not.

But it does not address the fundamental moral question at hand, and seems to ignore the individual acts of sex rather than looking to them as really where these teachings “come to life”.

Well, I guess I feel the same with respect to missing the point. I fully agree, ABC is contraceptive, and is a sin. What I feel you are avoiding is defining how we ONLY look at the individual acts of NFP, without looking at the system. In order to drive the point home on the sins of ABC, you have listed many paths of logic. Things like open to life, frustrate Gods will, unitive and procreative. To me, we have avoided applying these to NFP by limiting these aspects to individual sex acts. Again, to simplify, lets assume ABC violates every reason you mentioned. How have we determined if these apply to NFP?

 

[PassingThru]

As a follow up to the question of means.

I get what you are saying. You think I am looking only at the end, which is the avoidance of pregnancy while enjoying sex. I can agree that ABC could be seen as a sin in and of itself, making any use of ABC a sin.

Here is my issue. Even if I accept this, I would then follow up to ask why. You can list a whole range of things, as you have done. Now, here is where we seem to diverge. In order for any of this logic to hold, these reasons need to be shown to NOT apply to NFP, if we are assuming NFP is licit. At this point, everything mentioned to make this assertion has relied on the fact that each instance of Sex/No Sex is benign. This is obviously true. However, we are completely avoiding the overall program that is NFP.

If you want to call ABC a double sin, to include contraception that is fine. But just because NFP is not altering an act does not mean its overall morality is good.

Here is something I posted a while ago. It is another crude example, but it is actually quite a good corollary:

---

There are 2 people. Both dislike Joe.

Charlie decides to do something about it. Over the course of many weeks, Charlie builds a machine, or contraption, around a door that he knows Joe uses daily. Every day, Charlie adds a piece to his contraption. A sturdy shelf. Some rope. A pulley. A rock. Some twine. After many days have passed, Charlie is done, and heads home happy with his work.

Monday morning, Joe walks through the door, and is promptly smashed in the head with a 100 pound boulder and dies instantly.

Conversely, Amy also hates Joe (he miraculously recovered from the boulder incident1)

Amy walks up and blows Joes brains out with a .45.

In court, our friend Amy is obviously screwed. She will undoubtedly be spending 50 to life in San Quinton.

Charlie, however, feels he has an iron clad way out of any culpability for Joe’s death. He carefully lays out how none of the actions he took killed Joe. One day he put up a shelf. Another he attached a pulley to the doorframe. Another day he tied a rope to the rock. And so on, and clearly, none of the actions he did killed Joe. He then went on to explain how he is not responsible for the conditions present at the time Joe was killed. After all, Charlie did not create physics, or more specifically gravity. Nor did he create Force, which combined with the gravity and the Mass of the boulder to smash poor Joes skull. It is also not Charlies fault that he is observant enough to know that Joe walks through that door. Charlie didn’t make him walk there, his employer did.

So, did Charlie kill Joe?

---

Like I said, a bit crude! But it works. What I am saying here is that yes, individual acts of NFP are completely valid. However, by its very nature, its goal violates the same principals that are used to decide ABC is immoral. So, you are going around and around on the means. But that misses the point.

No one in the example above would hesitate to declare Charlie responsible. The means, in this case, are largely irrelevant. This is how I feel about NFP. I completely understand that the means of NFP are licit. No issue at all. But, so what? How is that any way to ignore the goal?

Does this make any of this more clear?

 

[PassingThru]

One appropriate use of NFP is not witholding fertility, but delaying the gift of fertility. As an analogy: My mother asks me to take out the trash. I say I’ll do it. One minute later, I have not done it yet, but I still plan to. At this point, am I already a liar because of my delayed response? Am I morally culpable? Or am I free to delay the fulfillment of my promise for serious reasons?

Hmmm, both NFP and ABC can be used for various periods of time. So…?

At their wedding, a couple make a vow to be open to life and accept children as gifts from God. One month later, they have been fetile, and not concieved yet, but still plan to. At this point, are they already breaking their vows?

?

Also, NFP is not, by definition, witholding fertility. It is, by definition, making yourself aware of the details of fetility. You are thinking of NFA (Natural Family Avoiding).

No. If NFP were merely “making yourself aware of the details of fertility”, people practicing NFP would have children at the same rate as those doing nothing. The practice of NFP includes making decisions on when to have sex and when to abstain, with the specific intent to avoid pregnancy. You have grossly altered the fact of NFP with that statement. Sorry to be so blunt.

Some use NFP to ensure pregnancy, yes. But that is a separate case altogether, and outside of this discussion.

The choice to abstain, or “withold fertility,” can be made. So too can the choice to engage in the marital act while fertile. I think every person posting in response to you, passingthru, has stipulated, and not grudgingly, that NFP *can *be abused to prevent any and all conceptions by a couple. Are you saying that this possibility/temptation makes it morally equal to artificial contraception?

I guess, no? Not sure what this means.

Are you saying that we would be better of, morally speaking, to use no cotraception, and also not to make ourselves aware of the fertile times, so we are not tempted to abstain during them if we really do desire to have sex?

No

I hope you are not reading a smug, “these are obviously horribly stupid postions to take” tone from my questions. I genuinely want to know. If you could be convinced, I think it helps me to have a better idea of how you currently understand things.

Check my post above, it might clarify a bit.

In the case of ABC, someone takes action to sterilize a sexual act. In the case of NFP, no one takes action to sterilize any sexual acts.

True. The action taken in NFP is to ensure all sexual acts are sterile. Its an issue of timeframe. Look at why ABC is immoral, and apply them to the program of NFP to ensure all sex acts are sterile. Again, I grant you ABC is illicit, for all reasons given. In what ways do they NOT apply to the *program *of NFP?

 

[davidv]

Hmmm, both NFP and ABC can be used for various periods of time. So…?

?

No. If NFP were merely “making yourself aware of the details of fertility”, people practicing NFP would have children at the same rate as those doing nothing. The practice of NFP includes making decisions on when to have sex and when to abstain, with the specific intent to avoid pregnancy. You have grossly altered the fact of NFP with that statement. Sorry to be so blunt.

Some use NFP to ensure pregnancy, yes. But that is a separate case altogether, and outside of this discussion.

I guess, no? Not sure what this means.

No

Check my post above, it might clarify a bit.

True. The action taken in NFP is to ensure all sexual acts are sterile. Its an issue of timeframe. Look at why ABC is immoral, and apply them to the program of NFP to ensure all sex acts are sterile. Again, I grant you ABC is illicit, for all reasons given. In what ways do they NOT apply to the *program *of NFP?

Re: Bolded statement above.
When done according the the guidelines of the Church, this is a false statement. A faithful Catholic at some point, barring some very rare permenant serious reason, will engage in fertile sexual acts. So “all” is clearly overstating the case.

 

[PassingThru]

Re: Bolded statement above.
When done according the the guidelines of the Church, this is a false statement. A faithful Catholic at some point, barring some very rare permenant serious reason, will engage in fertile sexual acts. So “all” is clearly overstating the case.

Good point. That is too inclusive. I will say for the period of time NFP is practiced (a year, 3 years, or until menopause) The action taken in NFP is to ensure all sex is sterile. Good catch.