Concept of Conception Perfection - Your thoughts

[davidv]

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.

I don’t see the distinction between this statement and the previous one,“all” is still an overstatement. What if is NFP is used to achieve pregnancy?

 

[Rach620]

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.

The “active prayer life” is what differentiates licit birth control from illicit birth control, and the unitive/procreative criteria is what differentiates licit sex acts from illicit ones. Two different, related, moral judgments.

Means are important, but they are not the only thing.

The contraception/NFP debate deals with means.
The licit/illicit birth control debate deals with ends.

This is what I have been trying to say all along. If the means are objectively illicit, they are never acceptable. Even the best ends don’t make them licit. If the means are objectively licit, they must also be accompanied with good ends. If good means (NFP) are accompanied by good ends (spacing births for serious reasons), then the use of the means is acceptable. If good means (NFP) are accompanied by bad ends (spacing births for unserious reasons), the moral act is illicit, but not because the means are illicit. Using NFP for bad reasons (bad ends) does not make one all of a sudden guilty of using contraception (bad means). I’m not saying that they are not still sinning, but that they are sinning in a different way and for a different reason than a contracepting couple is considered sinning.

Quote:
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?

I guess I need to be clearer in what I mean when I use “open to life,” which I believe is what the Church means by the term. When I’ve been using “open to life,” I have been describing an attitude–a prayerful, discerning attitude shared by a couple regarding welcoming children into their family according to God’s plan. I have been trying to be careful in using this term only when referring to the couple’s overall life, not to the use of NFP to avoid or achieve pregnancy in specific instances, but I’ve probably messed up. When we are talking about sex, we are talking about not frustrating the procreative end of sex. This is an essential part of being “open to life,” but not the specific meaning of the phrase.

So when I say that a couple “might not be open to life” in their use of NFP, I am referring to the couple who does not have “serious” reasons to avoid pregnancy, and who does not have an active discernment process regarding openness to pregnancy. This couple, even as they sin in this way through a lack of trust in God’s plan, still does not frustrate the procreative end of sex when they do come together as husband and wife. Overall, while their attitude is not open to life, their behavior is. Their individual acts of sex are both unitive and procreative because the spouses offer all of their natural fertility to one another in that act. They are using just means to accomplish an unjust end, but the sin of contraception does not pertain to ends, it pertains to means. Their sin is the unjustified use of birth control, but birth control is not objectively wrong.

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?”

I believe I have addressed this already. If we know every act is effectively sterile, as long as no barriers/contraceptives are used, the act itself does not frustrate the procreative purpose of sex but the attitude itself might not be “open to life”.

There is a difference between observing that the woman is effectively sterile and rendering the woman/man/act itself sterile. This is the crux of the issue. I really don’t know how else to explain it.

You are choosing to focus on the fact that they are offering “natural sterility,” which is true, but fertility and sterility are two sides of the same coin, and the natural process a woman goes through each month in moving from fertile to sterile phases of her cycle was designed by God. This is why it is permissible for husbands and wives to have recourse to the infertile period of the cycle when they are seeking to avoid pregnancy and can still be said as not frustrating the procreative end of sex as designed by God. NFP observes and works with this design. As I said before, if women had been created to be always fertile, like men, NFP would not only be impossible, it would be illicit in every case.

 

[Rach620]

In observing that she is infertile and choosing to have sex, the married couple is not affecting the possible fertility of that act whatsoever. They are not doing anything to make the act more or less fertile than it already naturally possibly can be due to God’s design. Even if we know with near absolute certainty that our bodies are sterile (as in my case), our actions are still “open to life” in that we are not frustrating the procreative end of sex, so long as we do nothing to reduce or impact our own natural fertility.

Perhaps this example will help bring the point home: many couples with infertility do a semen analysis to help diagnose potential issues. According to Catholic teaching, it is acceptable to do such an analysis on a sample of semen collected from a perforated condom used by the couple in an act of intercourse. It would not be licit for this infertile couple to use a non-perforated condom. Why is this? Because neither spouse can decline to offer their own natural fertility to the other in sex, according to God’s design, even when conception is next to impossible. Doing so would frustrate the procreative end of sex, even when we think procreation is impossible, because it disregards God’s procreative design of the human body.

Quote:
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.

They accomplish the same thing (the regulation of births) in different ways. As I said earlier, the regulation of births for serious reasons is acceptable according to Catholic teaching. Certain ways of regulating births are morally unacceptable because of what the Church teaches about the nature of sex. The Church teaches what she does about NFP based upon the teachings about sex, not because she wanted to make some rules/guidelines about birth control.

Quote:
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?

It is impossible to have coherent moral guidelines regarding the regulation of births that do not address the act of sex itself. Simple as that. I have not once declined to look at the “system” of NFP, and have described how its use ought to be situated in a couple’s life so as to be considered licit. You seem to think that this is irrelevant or a separate question. While it is a separate question from contraception, it is certainly not an irrelevant one, as it answers your concern about how we ought to look at the “system” of use of NFP.

Again, whatever the couple’s motives in their use of NFP to avoid pregnancy, even the worst or most shallow ones, they do not commit the sin of contraception. That sin has been very specifically defined by the Church, not for a “dodge” or a loophole, but because contraception pertains to the sex act.

 

[PassingThru]

I don’t see the distinction between this statement and the previous one,“all” is still an overstatement. What if is NFP is used to achieve pregnancy?

Well, the base assumption is they are using NFP to avoid pregnancy, which is our whole discussion. Yes, if NFP is being used in order to conceive, that is a different premise. For the case of this discussion, we are talking about NFP to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Rach620]

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.

The end you stated is not morally illicit in and of itself.

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.

I think that my distinction of ends and means in the previous post answers these questions. I have not “completely avoided the overall program that is NFP,” and have said, repeatedly, that NFP can only be used to avoid pregnancy in a morally licit way when the couples are using it for serious reasons (ie, a good end). I have argued throughout this thread why NFP is a licit means of birth regulation and why contraception is not. I have also explained how couples ought to discern appropriate reasons for accomplishing the end of birth regulation and how the Church accepts that spacing pregnancies can be a moral good.

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?

Maybe I’m being dense, but I don’t get the example/analogy. Charlie is guilty of attempted murder, and Marie is guilty of murder.

Again, I have not ignored the goal, and the Church does not ignore the goal, hence the importance I keep repeating of an active discernment and prayer life shared by a couple with regard to their use of NFP to avoid pregnancy. That is how they can accomplish a good end with the good means of NFP.

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.

NFP is a tool. That’s all it is. All NFP is is “making yourself aware of the details of fertility”. That’s what the method, itself, is. It’s information. You are taking issue with how certain couples use that information and applying it to NFP itself, which is improper. NFP does not stand alone as a method of birth control like something such as a condom does. I believe what you are talking about here is abstinence or periodic continence, which plenty of married couples do plenty of time w/o regard to avoiding pregnancy (ie, watching Letterman or playing Scrabble). You are taking issue with periodic continence coupled with NFP, not NFP itself. There are plenty of couples who we can very appropriately say “use NFP” and who never abstain from sex. For the sake of precision in our discussion, it would be helpful to talk about “couples who use NFP to avoid pregnancy” or something similar. NFP itself is not a moral issue, it is a health tool.

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?

NFP does not “ensure” all sexual acts are sterile any more than avoiding carbs “ensures” I won’t get fat. Because of how my body works, it is unlikely that I will get fat if I avoid carbs. This is because of how my body chemistry works. I cannot ensure that I will not get fat by avoiding carbs alone, because I cannot control how the fats and nutrients from the food I eat are directed in my body. Similarly, a woman who uses NFP to avoid cannot “ensure” that she won’t get pregnant or that she will be sterile for as long as she thinks she is, because she cannot control how her hormone system works or when her body triggers ovulation and menstruation.

You are observing the outcome of NFP used to avoid pregnancy and reading into this an effect of NFP that it does not–cannot–have.

 

[tjm190]

I don’t see the distinction between this statement and the previous one,“all” is still an overstatement. What if is NFP is used to achieve pregnancy?

Artificial means can be used to maximize the probability of conception as well.

 

[PassingThru]

In observing that she is infertile and choosing to have sex, the married couple is not affecting the possible fertility of that act whatsoever. They are not doing anything to make the act more or less fertile than it already naturally possibly can be due to God’s design. Even if we know with near absolute certainty that our bodies are sterile (as in my case), our actions are still “open to life” in that we are not frustrating the procreative end of sex, so long as we do nothing to reduce or impact our own natural fertility.

Perhaps this example will help bring the point home: many couples with infertility do a semen analysis to help diagnose potential issues. According to Catholic teaching, it is acceptable to do such an analysis on a sample of semen collected from a perforated condom used by the couple in an act of intercourse. It would not be licit for this infertile couple to use a non-perforated condom. Why is this? Because neither spouse can decline to offer their own natural fertility to the other in sex, according to God’s design, even when conception is next to impossible. Doing so would frustrate the procreative end of sex, even when we think procreation is impossible, because it disregards God’s procreative design of the human body.

They accomplish the same thing (the regulation of births) in different ways. As I said earlier, the regulation of births for serious reasons is acceptable according to Catholic teaching. Certain ways of regulating births are morally unacceptable because of what the Church teaches about the nature of sex. The Church teaches what she does about NFP based upon the teachings about sex, not because she wanted to make some rules/guidelines about birth control.

It is impossible to have coherent moral guidelines regarding the regulation of births that do not address the act of sex itself. Simple as that. I have not once declined to look at the “system” of NFP, and have described how its use ought to be situated in a couple’s life so as to be considered licit. You seem to think that this is irrelevant or a separate question. While it is a separate question from contraception, it is certainly not an irrelevant one, as it answers your concern about how we ought to look at the “system” of use of NFP.

Again, whatever the couple’s motives in their use of NFP to avoid pregnancy, even the worst or most shallow ones, they do not commit the sin of contraception. That sin has been very specifically defined by the Church, not for a “dodge” or a loophole, but because contraception pertains to the sex act.

You still seem stuck on establishing how NFP is not the same as contraception. And the acts themselves.

Nothing here explains how the practice of NFP fail to violate the principals that make the act of ABC immoral. This all still relies on the ideas of:

NFP is practiced with prayerful discernment
NFP does not violate individual sex acts

Even if we take these as givens, none of this explains how NFP is moral by the same standards used to make the act of ABC immoral. I have seen you explain how the Church views NFP as moral. That is good, but it still doesn’t address how these have been segregated.

Your last post drove it home.

“The contraception/NFP debate deals with means.
The licit/illicit birth control debate deals with ends.”

Well, I guess if you refuse to look at the relationship of means with ends, then yes, academically I agree with you. I don’t think I have ever looked at a situation and refused to connect those two at some point. I get that you are defending the means of NFP and deriding the means of ABC. I agree. I don’t understand how that precludes evaluating the relationship at some point using the same “moral logic”. But, with your limits in place, you are correct.

 

[PassingThru]

NFP is a tool. That’s all it is. All NFP is is “making yourself aware of the details of fertility”. That’s what the method, itself, is. It’s information. You are taking issue with how certain couples use that information and applying it to NFP itself, which is improper. NFP does not stand alone as a method of birth control like something such as a condom does. I believe what you are talking about here is abstinence or periodic continence, which plenty of married couples do plenty of time w/o regard to avoiding pregnancy (ie, watching Letterman or playing Scrabble). You are taking issue with periodic continence coupled with NFP, not NFP itself. There are plenty of couples who we can very appropriately say “use NFP” and who never abstain from sex. For the sake of precision in our discussion, it would be helpful to talk about “couples who use NFP to avoid pregnancy” or something similar. NFP itself is not a moral issue, it is a health tool.

NFP does not “ensure” all sexual acts are sterile any more than avoiding carbs “ensures” I won’t get fat. Similarly, a woman who uses NFP to avoid cannot “ensure” that she won’t get pregnant or that she will be sterile for as long as she thinks she is, because she cannot control how her hormone system works or when her body triggers ovulation and menstruation.

You are observing the outcome of NFP used to avoid pregnancy and reading into this an effect of NFP that it does not–cannot–have.

Ummmm, OK, the train has totally gone of the tracks at this point.

The closer we get to honing in on what could potentially be right/wrong moral/immoral, the more of these splitting of definitions. So now in order to discuss any potential implications of NFP, I now have to also agree that NFP is not a method to avoid children? Or, the “outcome” of NFP just happens to be a lack of pregnancy? And at the end there, we are actually at the point that NFP cannot be used to avoid pregnancy?

I am sorry, but holy cow. I will have to respectfully bow out of this discussion. I have tried to be as generous as possible by granting as many of your assertions as I can to help move the conversation along. But we are now getting to the point of sillyness.

Sorry, I enjoyed your debate, as you seem to be a very intelligent person with relation to this topic.

 

[Rach620]

I’m sorry that you do not want to continue this discussion.

I too thought we were reaching a resolution to this discussion, and thought it could be helped by clarifying the terms being used and exactly what we are talking about. In my last couple of posts I have not been “splitting definitions,” but attempting to explain what I have meant by the words I have used throughout this discussion, as we have clearly been using the same terms in different ways. I thought it was important to make some of these definitions known, especially with regard to the “open to life” phrase.

I was not “stuck on establishing that NFP is not contraception,” but was attempting to explain exactly why the Church believes it is not, and therefore why its moral use all boils down to the “discernment” and “openness to life” question, by drawing distinctions that were not being made. We should have begun with the definitions I just recently introduced, but since we did not there was confusion all along.

It seems to me that I have not been clear enough even in my most recent posts, as by your last post you clearly do not understand what I was trying to say about what NFP is vs. what it accomplishes. NFP just doesn’t stand alone as a birth control method. I use NFP for health reasons, other women use it to try to conceive. That alone demonstrates that it’s an information-gathering exercise. It can be used as a birth control method when coupled with abstinence, but alone it’s not. So either your issue is with marital abstinence (this does not seem to be the case) or with the acceptance of a married couple seeming to try to “fool God” by closely monitoring their own bodies and “working around” the fertile time. You seem to be questioning whether NFP is an appropriate use of our medical/scientific wisdom, particularly in this area. And I’ve been trying to explain, in a variety of ways, why it is not “fooling God” but a good example of responsible stewardship of His creation when done in a spirit of prayerful discernment (as with every other question of stewardship).

I still do not understand how or why you have gotten the sense from my posts that I was not connecting means and ends. Repeatedly I connected the two and stated how even an NFP using couple can sin, and how the use of the process of NFP must itself be done for a just end. But because the means of NFP itself are not illicit, it must be situated in a licit “process,” ie the life shared by a couple and its overall openness to life. A moral means must be coupled with a moral end, or else the couple is sinning. The fact that some couples might not have a moral end does not mean that overall and in every case there is something objectively wrong with the means they use. (Think about it–the Church even permits a woman to use the Pill for “health reasons”. The Pill itself is not the enemy; its use to frustrate the procreative end of sex is.)

I did not intend for this post to be so long, as I didn’t want you to think I had to have the “last word”…I just wanted to respond to a couple of things you said, and thank you for your charitable contributions to this thread.

God bless.

 

[seanflynn]

Rach, you are right on the money!

[The contraception/NFP debate deals with means.
The licit/illicit birth control debate deals with ends./QUOTE] This feels like end of of discussion to me.

Passingthru, the last piece of Charlie’s contraption was necessary for Joe’s death to occur. In NFP, what is the “last piece of the puzzle,” so to speak, that the entire process hinges on?

 

[PassingThru]

Rach, you are right on the money!

[The contraception/NFP debate deals with means.
The licit/illicit birth control debate deals with ends./QUOTE] This feels like end of of discussion to me.