Contraception question

[CuriousInIL]

This appears as an obvious projection of the “taking from” and “using of” that is inherent with ABC onto the “giving to” and “union with” that is inherent with NFP. The qualitative and moral difference between the two approaches are vast and more than simple mechanics.

It seems to me that this is discussing only the “objective” issues and that while NFP may inherently, objectively concern “giving” and “union,” subjective intent can still turn it into a “taking” and “using.” Or, said another way, there is “taking” and “using” if one or both of the objective and subjective intentions leans that way. ABC fails on the objective, NFP passes the objective and may or may not pass the subjective. Is this correct?

 

[Mijoy2]

NFP couples don’t participate in the act if fertility is unwanted. Contracepting couples participate in the act and reject that very important aspect of themselves or their spouse.

But the NFP couple does participate in the act when fertility is least probable. With the hope that conception does not occur. Isn’t this the avoidence of pregnancy and in this respect isn’t it, at least objectively, the same thing?

Like the OP this isn’t my issue. Like the OP I am curious.

Another question, and maybe this is too complex to answer. For the average healthy couple, how many days (say a month) are “on days” or days where the marital embrace is improbable to result in a pregnancy?

 

[CuriousInIL]

Another question, and maybe this is too complex to answer. For the average healthy couple, how many days (say a month) are “on days” or days where the marital embrace is improbable to result in a pregnancy?

---

Rationale:

** On average, most NFP methods require 10 to 12 days of abstinence per cycle. The length of abstinence depends upon the NFP method chosen and individual characteristics of the woman’s cycle.

infoforhealth.org/pr/j44/j44chap10.shtml*

 

[Mijoy2]

infoforhealth.org/pr/j44/j44chap10.shtml

Thank you.
Question about stats sited. I believe when a stat is sited in the form:

Estimate: Estimates range from 3% with perfect use to about 20% with typical use.

This needs to be clarified. Does this mean that every time the act is performed there is a 1 in 5 chance of pregnancy or does it mean that throughout some time frame (maybe lifetime) there is a 1 in 5 chance of pregnancy (assuming the 20% figure) Huge difference.

If it is a timeframe and that timeframe where 1 year. If you practice NFP for 5 years, chances are you would have 1 child over this 5 year period.

 

[Vincent]

But the NFP couple does participate in the act when fertility is least probable. With the hope that conception does not occur. Isn’t this the avoidence of pregnancy and in this respect isn’t it, at least objectively, the same thing?

It is different because fertility isn’t being deliberated frustrated by the couple.

The infertility in this case is naturally occurring; they aren’t deliberately rendering the conjugal act sterile, as in the case of a couple that uses contraception.

 

[LittleDeb]

It seems to me that this is discussing only the “objective” issues and that while NFP may inherently, objectively concern “giving” and “union,” subjective intent can still turn it into a “taking” and “using.” Or, said another way, there is “taking” and “using” if one or both of the objective and subjective intentions leans that way. ABC fails on the objective, NFP passes the objective and may or may not pass the subjective. Is this correct?

Yes. You are correct. NFP is objectively neutral. It can be used (subjectively) in a sinful manner. Like all neutral things, and even good things, sin can from a selfish use of just about anything.

But the NFP couple does participate in the act when fertility is least probable. With the hope that conception does not occur. Isn’t this the avoidence of pregnancy and in this respect isn’t it, at least objectively, the same thing?

Like the OP this isn’t my issue. Like the OP I am curious.

I struggled with this thought process myself. What helped me was in considering periodic continence (abstinence) from a different point of view. There have been a few threads on NFP recently, so if I repeat myself please forgive me.

Charting for fertility/infertility is never wrong. Having the information is never sinful. Even a single person is doing nothing sinful in having knowledge of fertility. After all, men know when they are fertile because they are always fertile. This knowledge is simply knowledge. It is only intentional abstaining during fertility that carries grave reason.

The marital act itself is never altered. It is not just the success of pregnancy that is the desired outcome. If it were, then IVF would be licit. IVF is not licit because it too alters the act. So, a couple trying to acheive pregnancy could subjectively sin if they use fertility knowledge to only reproduce. (I give the example of the couple only having sex during fertility and the husband feels like a stud for hire and/or the wife feels like a brood mare.) Having sex during fertility isn’t objectively sinful in and of itself. But a couple might be sinning if they are doing so for selfish reasons.

It helped me to look at both ends of the spectrum. It is the nature of each individual act that must be objectively procreative and unitive.

I hope that helps. Please let me know if I can help simplify. Human sexuality is a very complex issue. It took me years to get even a simple grasp of it.

 

[Mijoy2]

I hope that helps. Please let me know if I can help simplify. Human sexuality is a very complex issue. It took me years to get even a simple grasp of it.

Thank you this indeed helps.

From the persepctive of someone, in certain respect, from the outside looking in (before reverted surgery removed this from being something I have to consider too highly and my wife and I are also late forties) I can now look back on my life and see what I could have done differently.

The two most precious things in my life are my two children. During our child producing years I elected to limit the number of children I have to two. Now I wish I had more.

Beyond this though, as I look at the concept of NFP (something I know very little about), one word comes to mind.

Romantic!

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What a sad thread. It is so sad when someone is guided to the Church by the Holy Spirit, believes it is the true Church so enthusiastically, and then they let something from their previous life that they just can’t let go of rip them away from the Church. I pray that those being drawn to the Church can let go of their pride and put their complete trust in Christ which means trusting in the Church he established to guide us and to which he entrusted the keys to the kingdom. We must approach the kingdom as little Children. It may sound harsh, but no matter how anyone trys to spin it, s***omeone was so attatched to ABC ***that they chose to cling to it over the Church they believed Christ established. Wasn’t it only about the last 60 years out of 2,000 years of Christianity that any denomination allowed ABC. Yet already some Christians are so attatched to it that they let it be the deciding factor on which Church they believe is the true Church.

Why to you say that?

 

[BlazingBolt]

If the Pope made a statement, explicitly ex-Cathedra, stating that all forms of artificial birth control now existing, as a matter of faith, are definitively wrong, or if a council or if Scripture made this assertion, I would immediately accept that ABC was absolutely wrong, and would abandon it immediately.

Noma:

One of the things I hope to happen is to be shown to be in error. Clearly, if this is done, I must change my position.

Then

Noma:

I was wrong.

After reading some of the resources given by you here, I have come to the conclusion that I was absolutely and completely wrong about the teachings of the Roman Church.

The teaching on contraception, I can only conclude, is claimed to be infallible by the Roman Church, and that denying this is denying the Roman Church.

She didn’t do what she said she would do when faced with the truth of the Churches teachings on the use of ABC. Instead she chose to deny the Church. We should all pray for her, even Peter denied Christ 3 times. The Heavens will rejoice if she is able to return to the Church.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Then

She didn’t do what she said she would do when faced with the truth of the Churches teachings on the use of ABC. Instead she chose to deny the Church. We should all pray for her, even Peter denied Christ 3 times. The Heavens will rejoice if she is able to return to the Church.

???
The thread is about contraception no noma ???

 

[BlazingBolt]

The thread was about the differences between ABC and NFP, but then it took a turn to whether or not the Church’s position forbiding NFP was morally binding.

There is no way around it, it is.

You asked what specifically my post was about, and I answered you. And by the way your typos make your posts difficult to understand, may I suggest a proof read and an attempt to try to be clearer.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The thread was about the differences between ABC and NFP, but then it took a turn to whether or not the Church’s position forbiding NFP was morally binding.

There is no way around it, it is.

You asked what specifically my post was about, and I answered you. And by the way your typos make your posts difficult to understand, may I suggest a proof read and an attempt to try to be clearer.

Actually no, no and no, many people install ABC in all threads to justify their position. That allows them to type things they should not. I wish posters would actually answer the question not hide it. If your confused read the original post ( No ABC none at all)

 

[mark_a]

The two most precious things in my life are my two children. During our child producing years I elected to limit the number of children I have to two. Now I wish I had more.

I’ve heard so many people, especially women who chose elective hysterectomy, say they wish they had more children.

 

[BlazingBolt]

Actually no, no and no, many people install ABC in all threads to justify their position. That allows them to type things they should not. I wish posters would actually answer the question not hide it. If your confused read the original post ( No ABC none at all)

The Church’s teaching on this matter is perfectly clear, has not changed in 2,000 years, and is morally binding on the faithful. The orignal post was simply trying to understand why, not deny it. Noma came in here trying to deny it and eventually admitted she was wrong. Are you still in denial? Are you still trying to figure out some kind of “loop hole” where you can justify it? If so show some kind of evidence where the Church say’s it is not morally binding. The burden of proof is on you. Holy people do not go around trying to figure out some way they can get around the difficult rules. The Church’s authority comes from Christ, is it really wise to try and figure out a way where this authority does not apply to you?

 

[cynic]

No. ABC by design and meaning (properly understood as an attack against the full mutual giving and union of the marital conjugal act) can only logically and practically result in the objectification of the loved one. Because, if one is not fully giving and fully receiving in the conjugal act, it objectively and inadvertently (independent of subjective feelings/perceptions) defaults to a degree of taking and withholding, which denigrates the natural moral law design of the conjugal act.

by withholding I assume you mean of fertility. The couple practising nfp are also witholding this by limiting sex to times when the is less to ‘give’ . Is there a difference between limiting the act to times when there is no consequence and eliminating the chance of any consequence directly?

I think that real problem the Catholic Church has with contraception is that using it makes it explicitly obviouse that the couple are having sex for its own sake without wanting children.

 

[marci]

During the retreat my husband and I attended as part of marriage preparation, we were told that NFP could only be used in grave or serious circumstances. It was not to be used simply because one doesn’t want any or more children. They were speaking based upon a document which states this (can’t remember now what the document was or is called). We were also told that it could be a sin to withhold sex from your spouse (unless for serious reason). I don’t mean necessarily in the context of using NFP, but in general.

In my opinion, if the intention behind NFP is to limit children (for selfish reasons) than it is no different that using barrier methods.

I have heard all of the arguments about “giving of one’s whole self to one’s spouse” and “NFP being natural because is uses the body’s fertility”. I have yet to hear an argument that I can accept through “reason” that convinces me that NFP is any different than barrier BC.

I know that some will say that “the church says so”. However, there was a time when the church taught that the reason masterbation was wrong was because the man “spilled his seed”. At the time they believed that “seed” contained the whole essense of the human being–that it was the child and that the woman’s womb was mearly the “oven” where it cooked.

I also think that it is wrong to assume that every couple that use a condom, for example, are inherantly being selfish everytime they are intimate. Does that mean that everytime that a couple using NFP obstain are being selfish because they are not at that moment being open to life? Furthermore, should every occasion of intimacey between spouses only been viewed as unselfish if it purposefully leads to life?
Should all intimacy by spouses be considered selfish if it takes place during times when they know it will not lead to conception? Afterall, if you know that during this time the act will not lead to conception, then doesn’t the act become simply something pleasurable for pleasure’s sake?

What happens in a circumstance in which one spouse wants another child and the other doesn’t. If they are using NFP and one wishes to obstain because they don’t want more children and the other wishes to be intimate because they do, isn’t the person unwillingly to be intimate being selfish and sinful, for that matter?

I know this matter won’t be laid to rest for me simply by reading these posts, but I feel that some of the questions I have are shared by many stuggling with this issue.

 

[setter]

by withholding I assume you mean of fertility. The couple practising nfp are also witholding this by limiting sex to times when the is less to ‘give’ .

It is a misnomer to claim that the NFP practicing couple is withholding fertility. The NFP couple by cooperating with (versus ABC acting against, “contra-“) the natural design fertility cycle are open to fertility by the very nature of their actions. Intent can render a misuse of NFP, but never a withholding of fertility as an object of the choice.

1643 “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.” (CCC)

1755 A *morally good *act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.(CCC)

Is there a difference between limiting the act to times when there is no consequence and eliminating the chance of any consequence directly?

My understanding is that with NFP (and all forms of ABC) there is always a chance of pregnancy. Properly understood and practiced, there is no [negative] “consequence” (as you connote) with NFP, but a receiving what God has ordained as the couple exercises discernment in the use of the co-creative power entrusted to them.

I think that real problem the Catholic Church has with contraception is that using it makes it explicitly obviouse that the couple are having sex for its own sake without wanting children.

I suppose that with a view from the contraceptive mentality side of the fence that this would seem to be the case …more of that projection stuff?

 

[setter]

During the retreat my husband and I attended as part of marriage preparation, we were told that NFP could only be used in grave or serious circumstances. It was not to be used simply because one doesn’t want any or more children. They were speaking based upon a document which states this (can’t remember now what the document was or is called). We were also told that it could be a sin to withhold sex from your spouse (unless for serious reason). I don’t mean necessarily in the context of using NFP, but in general.

This is most unfortunate and unacceptable that those entrusted with a sensitive Church ministry are actively promulgating grave error. Circimstances can never render the use of an evil action licit/morally permissible. There exists no such official, authoritative Church “document” that those folks alluded to.

The has always been consistent that it is never morally permissible to use contraception (evil means):

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil: (CCC)

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. (CCC)

In my opinion, if the intention behind NFP is to limit children (for selfish reasons) than it is no different that using barrier methods.

Yes, NFP can be seriously misused for selfish reasons.

I have heard all of the arguments about “giving of one’s whole self to one’s spouse” and “NFP being natural because is uses the body’s fertility”. I have yet to hear an argument that I can accept through “reason” that convinces me that NFP is any different than barrier BC.

It can helpful and enlightening to develop your Catholic knowlege of the theology of the body as the compelling natural moral law rationale basis for the prohibition against all forms of ABC for whatever reason. Please let us know if you need to resource references to this end.

2370 Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. (CCC)

I know that some will say that “the church says so”. However, there was a time when the church taught that the reason masterbation was wrong was because the man “spilled his seed”. At the time they believed that “seed” contained the whole essense of the human being–that it was the child and that the woman’s womb was mearly the “oven” where it cooked.

Self-abuse (masturbation) has always been considered intrinsically disordered action and a grave sin by the Church.

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by** marci**
I also think that it is wrong to assume that every couple that use a condom, for example, are inherantly being selfish everytime they are intimate. Does that mean that everytime that a couple using NFP obstain are being selfish because they are not at that moment being open to life? Furthermore, should every occasion of intimacey between spouses only been viewed as unselfish if it purposefully leads to life?
Should all intimacy by spouses be considered selfish if it takes place during times when they know it will not lead to conception? Afterall, if you know that during this time the act will not lead to conception, then doesn’t the act become simply something pleasurable for pleasure’s sake?

In one sense you are comparing apples and oranges here. ABC = Always intrisnically evil and gravely disordered.

NFP = Always morally neutral, can be misused in intent and rended the use of NFP sinful by intent.

What happens in a circumstance in which one spouse wants another child and the other doesn’t. If they are using NFP and one wishes to obstain because they don’t want more children and the other wishes to be intimate because they do, isn’t the person unwillingly to be intimate being selfish and sinful, for that matter?

Why would you advise this couple to be open to conceiving a child if such a divisive issue exists?

I know this matter won’t be laid to rest for me simply by reading these posts, but I feel that some of the questions I have are shared by many stuggling with this issue.

The “issue” of whether contraceptive intercourse is ever licit or not has been laid to rest by the Church. These “questions” are simply invites and ways to deepen one’s appreciation of the beauty of the Church’s teaching in this area of Catholic morality.

 

[noma]

The Church’s authority comes from Christ, is it really wise to try and figure out a way where this authority does not apply to you?

The Roman Church’s authority comes from its own arrogance! Its teachings are so lacking in any sort of love as to be considered Catholic.

Christ is head of the Catholic Church, and I am finding out more and more how little this church has to do with the Pope.

And, as this deals with a different concept, I will be posting its like in the “apologetics” page. I would like to confront people with my objections to how the Roman Church does things.