Dangerous pregnancies, ABC, NFP

[CatholicSooner]

What causes you to assume selfish reasons are at play? NFP (to avoid) is never licit for selfish reasons. It is licit only when there are good reasons to avoid.

And I would guess that 90% of couples using NFP are strictly to not get pregnant. To me that isn’t a good reason.

How do you reconcile your statement about what is/is not procreative with the FACT that the Church requires that every individual sex act be unitive and procreative? Is it therefore not clear that the term pertains to a single act? The term is simply not applicable as a measure of whether a “sufficient” proportion of sex was had during fertile times. If you don’t like that, you’ll need to debate it with Pope Paul VI. Neither you nor I can decide the meaning of the word. In the context of marital relations, Humanae Vitae has already provided the meaning.

NFP practiced for selfish reasons is wrong. But the sex acts may remain procreative- by definition of the word!

You mean by the Catholic church’s definition of the word.
You won’t be able to change my mind that having sex only when a woman cannot get pregnant is procreative. If the church means something else by that word, they need to use a different word.

Fundamentally you seem to be arguing that the Church teaching on NFP is wrong? That avoiding pregnancy by restricting the occasions for sex to infertile times is wrong. Is it your view that avoiding children for a time may only be achieved by totally abstaining for the relevant period?

I am arguing that it is wrong because of the reasons the church uses to say ABC is wrong.

If you use the same reasons for ABC being wrong, I think the only right way to avoid pregnancy is abstaining. And then that opens up a whole new can of worms on not having sex during marriage.

 

[maryjk]

And I would guess that 90% of couples using NFP are strictly to not get pregnant. To me that isn’t a good reason.

So what is a good reason to use NFP?

 

[CatholicSooner]

fixed it for you. It goes both ways.

If the church doesn’t mean procreative as in the standard accepted definition in the dictionary, they need to use a different term

 

[CatholicSooner]

So what is a good reason to use NFP?

Keep in mind that I don’t necessarily think that NFP is wrong…I just think that it is hypocritical to say that ABC is wrong and NFP is right.

But in the context of this debate, I would say NFP would be right if used to GET pregnant

 

[Rau]

I would be interested to see the age breakdown of the people in this conversation. Mainly to see whom are past menopause and don’t have to worry about getting pregnant anymore.

My wife and I are 29 with three kids. All pregnancies have been via C-section b/c of high blood pressure. All kids are two years apart. Having three kids under 30 is kind of scary when knowing we have 20+ years ahead of fertility. The last pregnancy was rougher and my wife is still on blood pressure meds three months after the surgery. She never had high blood pressure before.

I do not have a set number of kids that I want. I love having kids. I love being a father. I love trying to set a good example for them. I love my wife too and she is visibly shaken by the fear of complications if she would get pregnant again…especially before she gets her blood pressure under control.

We are honestly fine with using NFP because the church supports it. I just htink that the reasons against using ABC should also apply to NFP but I think they aren’t because people would leave the church.

You guys can judge us all you want but we will probably be mostly abstaining until she starts her cycles and then use NFP with condoms until her health is back and then strictly use NFP

I can understand your anxiety with medical concerns at issue. I hope all goes well for you and you make decisions you are at peace with.

I can also understand why you might wish that ABC and NFP ought be viewed equal in some sense, even if it’s that they are equally flawed!

I’m not sure if you have experience with NFP yet, but if not, I’m sure you will soon discover it is very different from ABC, and a bit of a trial in the early days.

 

[mommamaree]

That does make more sense…but still if you break it down, ABC is not allowed because it is an artificial contraception. NFP is a natural contraceptive. I like to look at the end game. Why are each of these methods used? To avoid pregnancy. Why is one form worse than the other. I am interested in the reason not the response “b/c this is what the church says”. WHY does the church say that?

I personally believe that intent and circumstance should come into play. There is a difference between a married couple that already has children and may have medical issues using ABC and a single man hitting the clubs every weekend with ABC in their wallets. The married couple is still wanting to have children, but circumstances may cause them to want to delay it. The single person simply doesn’t want to have children at all.

Okay, I can answer some of this, too.

The Church has not condemned the intention to avoid pregnancy, and has even said that a couple may intend to avoid pregnancy if they have just reasons. Furthermore, the couple alone is the entity who has the authority to determine if they have just reasons. They are not required to seek permission or to ask a priest if their reasons are just or serious enough. However, if they choose to seek counsel, they are welcome to do so. So the intention to avoid pregnancy may indeed by quite justifiable and even a good thing to do, as in the case of a mother whose life may be in jeopardy if she becomes pregnant.

Okay, next part. NFP is not a natural contraceptive. Contraception means “against conception”. In NFP, no action is taken against conception. So it cannot rightly be called a contraceptive. However, in medical terminology, the rhythm/calendar method are sometimes included in lists of contraceptive choices, but mostly as a way of excluding that as a valuable tool in family planning. Most OBGYN’s are unfamiliar with NFP methods, which are far superior to the rhythm/calendar method. If they were more familiar with it, I bet many of them would start suggesting it as an option. After all, the FAM, fertility awareness method, is gaining momentum in secular circles as an alternative to contraception. But yes, in medical terminology, they are likely to refer to it as contraception, just as they persist in calling miscarriages “spontaneous abortions” no matter how much it grieves the mothers to hear that. Quite simply, medical terms can be wrong. Look at hysterectomy. It has the same root as “hysterical” and the removal of a woman’s womb was once done as a remedy for women who were sexually frustrated (at one time referred to as hysteria). So, doctors can be wrong. The Church, however, has the words of eternal life, and in Her infallible teachings on marriage and sexuality, the nuance and the clarity She uses is extremely important to helping us to understand the true reality of things.

Please let me know if this has helped and also if there is anything that I have failed to address. God bless!

 

[Rau]

If the church doesn’t mean procreative as in the standard accepted definition in the dictionary, they need to use a different term

As I said, you’ll need to refer that to Pope Paul VI. And for the record, your statement is simply wrong. The issue is less with the meaning of the word procreative (or the phrase “ordered to procreation”) and more with what it is to be applied to (individual sex act). Read HV. Your initial misunderstanding can be accepted as simple error. But your continued refusal to acknowledge what the Church actually says, and to insist that it says something else, appears to be wilful. Given your earlier posts comparing NFP and ABC, I assume this is because it assists you to support your original assertion that NFP and ABC are no different.

 

[Rau]

Keep in mind that I don’t necessarily think that NFP is wrong…I just think that it is hypocritical to say that ABC is wrong and NFP is right.

But in the context of this debate, I would say NFP would be right if used to GET pregnant

I’m trying to understand what you are saying…

What do you mean by “in the context of this debate?” Sounds like, in that context (whatever that means), the only way to space children or avoid for a longer time (in both cases, good reasons are assumed) is to totally abstain from sex.

But, if we put aside “this debate”, NFP may be OK (ie. you “don’t necessarily think its wrong”), and if it’s OK, ABC must be too.

I think you are saying that in your opinion, “ABC is OK” (?)

 

[Xantippe]

CatholicSooner:

“And I would guess that 90% of couples using NFP are strictly to not get pregnant. To me that isn’t a good reason.”

Outside the Catholic bubble, out in the world at large, fertility awareness principles are very mainstream for achieving pregnancy.

In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of people who do fertility awareness are just doing it in order to get pregnant–NFP to avoid pregnancy is much more niche.

Like another poster, I suspect that your equating NFP to contraception is caused by inexperience with conservative NFP and the real sacrifices involved in practicing it. If you had more experience, the differences between the two would be quite vivid.

 

[ahs]

Mommamaree, thank you SO MUCH for the clarifications on “ordered toward procreation” vs. “procreative” terms. These things get confused more than anything, from what I have noticed in other debates on this topic.

…but still if you break it down, ABC is not allowed because it is an artificial contraception. NFP is a natural contraceptive.

If you are certain that NFP is a natural “contraceptive”, then you should have no problem at all answering those 2 questions which have yet to be answered and which you promised to go into more detail about today. So, back to contraception being wrong becasue it seeks to remove the procreative nature of an act which is taking place, and NFP being either 1) the abstianing from an act in the fertile period or 2) engaging in, and completing, an act in the natural manner during the infertile period:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

 

[Rau]

CatholicSooner:

“And I would guess that 90% of couples using NFP are strictly to not get pregnant. To me that isn’t a good reason.”

Outside the Catholic bubble, out in the world at large, fertility awareness principles are very mainstream for achieving pregnancy.

In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of people who do fertility awareness are just doing it in order to get pregnant–NFP to avoid pregnancy is much more niche.

Like another poster, I suspect that your equating NFP to contraception is caused by inexperience with conservative NFP and the real sacrifices involved in practicing it. If you had more experience, the differences between the two would be quite vivid.

But he has the idea of “reasons” confused. There are but 2 reasons to use NFP - to get pregnant or to avoid pregnancy at this time.

The question of “good reasons” arises in respect of the answer to the question “why do you want to avoid”?

The OP’s reasoning, including repeated refusal to accept that HV applies procreative (“ordered to procreation”) to individual sex acts (and not to the proportion of sex had during fertile times), seems to be in support of making a case that ABC and NFP are equivalent when the latter is used to avoid. That is - he tries to argue that both fail to meet the Church standard of unitive + procreative. This leaves the option of rejecting both or choosing either!

 

[ahs]

…The OP’s reasoning, including repeated refusal to accept that HV applies procreative (“ordered to procreation”) to individual sex acts (and not to the proportion of sex had during fertile times), seems to be in support of making a case that ABC and NFP are equivalent when the latter is used to avoid. That is - he tries to argue that both fail to meet the Church standard of unitive + procreative. This leaves the option of rejecting both or choosing either!

I think the confusion is due to the differing understandings of “procreative”. The best thing in these debates is to first agree on terms. “Procreative”, for exmaple, explains the inherent nature of sexual intercourse. It is an act which is, by its very nature, “procreative + unitive”. Sex can also be “procreative” as a result of a completed act during a fertile window…meaning that conception has occured.

Where sin is invloved is when there is an attempt to remove that procreative nature from an act which is taking place. This is where we employ the term “ordered, per se, toward procreation”. The Church teaches that each and every ACT (sex) that takes place must be “ordered, per se, toward procreation”. There is no teaching that each and every act must by “procreative”…resulting in conception…yet that natually completed act will be “procreative” by it’s very nature because of what sex is.

But to avoid confusion, I’ll stop there and simply ask the obvious questions to those who want to equate what contraception is with NFP [to avoid pregnancy]:

In the understanding that contraception is wrong becasue it seeks to remove the procreative nature of an act which is taking place, and NFP involves either 1) the abstianing from an act in the fertile period or 2) engaging in, and completing, an act in the natural manner during the infertile period:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

 

[mommamaree]

But he has the idea of “reasons” confused. There are but 2 reasons to use NFP - to get pregnant or to avoid pregnancy at this time.

The question of “good reasons” arises in respect of the answer to the question “why do you want to avoid”?

The OP’s reasoning, including repeated refusal to accept that HV applies procreative (“ordered to procreation”) to individual sex acts (and not to the proportion of sex had during fertile times), seems to be in support of making a case that ABC and NFP are equivalent when the latter is used to avoid. That is - he tries to argue that both fail to meet the Church standard of unitive + procreative. This leaves the option of rejecting both or choosing either!

To the blue highlighted statement: I agree that is the conclusion that might be drawn. However, I do not believe that CatholicSooner is refusing to accept a teaching. It seems more like genuine confusion, and a need for clarity and compassion, and an exhortation for him to pray and read. Added to that, he has the personal background that adds weight to this time of learning. This is not merely hypothetical. For health reasons, he has to get this figured out now. When I was learning about all of this, during my conversion, it took months to explore the readings, to ponder and to pray, and to work it out with my spouse. And I didn’t have the added concern of health problems at the time, because my husband and I were trying for another baby.

 

[Rau]

Mommamaree, thank you SO MUCH for the clarifications on “ordered toward procreation” vs. “procreative” terms. These things get confused more than anything, from what I have noticed in other debates on this topic.

If you are certain that NFP is a natural “contraceptive”, then you should have no problem at all answering those 2 questions which have yet to be answered and which you promised to go into more detail about today. So, back to contraception being wrong becasue it seeks to remove the procreative nature of an act which is taking place, and NFP being either 1) the abstianing from an act in the fertile period or 2) engaging in, and completing, an act in the natural manner during the infertile period:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

AHS - as you may have gleaned from the recent discussion, our interlocutor does not envisage judging each act as to whether it is procreative, but rather the pattern of acts. So, he judges the “pattern” of acts when using NFP to avoid, and calls that “not procreative”. This view, which of course is not what the Church intends, leads him to conclude that NFP is no better than ABC, or rather that ABC is no less proper than NFP.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Okay, I can answer some of this, too.

The Church has not condemned the intention to avoid pregnancy, and has even said that a couple may intend to avoid pregnancy if they have just reasons. Furthermore, the couple alone is the entity who has the authority to determine if they have just reasons. They are not required to seek permission or to ask a priest if their reasons are just or serious enough. However, if they choose to seek counsel, they are welcome to do so. So the intention to avoid pregnancy may indeed by quite justifiable and even a good thing to do, as in the case of a mother whose life may be in jeopardy if she becomes pregnant.

Okay, next part. NFP is not a natural contraceptive. Contraception means “against conception”. In NFP, no action is taken against conception. So it cannot rightly be called a contraceptive. However, in medical terminology, the rhythm/calendar method are sometimes included in lists of contraceptive choices, but mostly as a way of excluding that as a valuable tool in family planning. Most OBGYN’s are unfamiliar with NFP methods, which are far superior to the rhythm/calendar method. If they were more familiar with it, I bet many of them would start suggesting it as an option. After all, the FAM, fertility awareness method, is gaining momentum in secular circles as an alternative to contraception. But yes, in medical terminology, they are likely to refer to it as contraception, just as they persist in calling miscarriages “spontaneous abortions” no matter how much it grieves the mothers to hear that. Quite simply, medical terms can be wrong. Look at hysterectomy. It has the same root as “hysterical” and the removal of a woman’s womb was once done as a remedy for women who were sexually frustrated (at one time referred to as hysteria). So, doctors can be wrong. The Church, however, has the words of eternal life, and in Her infallible teachings on marriage and sexuality, the nuance and the clarity She uses is extremely important to helping us to understand the true reality of things.

Please let me know if this has helped and also if there is anything that I have failed to address. God bless!

I disagree that in NFP no action is taken against conception. By only having sex when infertile, you are against conception.

Let’s look at an extreme example. What if a couple uses NFP to not get pregnant their entire marriage with the intention of never procreating. Is that not wrong? Isn’t being open to life a requirement for the sacrement of marriage?

I don’t see the difference in avoiding pregnancy from ABC or NFP. IT seems like a huge double standard to me.

Keep in mind, I’m not saying that I thing either method is right or wrong, just that they should be viewed in the same light.

And let’s not act like the church has ever changed it’s position on issues before or that God has never permitted his people to partke in activities that he doesn’t like

 

[mommamaree]

I disagree that in NFP no action is taken against conception. By only having sex when infertile, you are against conception.

Let’s look at an extreme example. What if a couple uses NFP to not get pregnant their entire marriage with the intention of never procreating. Is that not wrong? Isn’t being open to life a requirement for the sacrement of marriage?

I don’t see the difference in avoiding pregnancy from ABC or NFP. IT seems like a huge double standard to me.

Keep in mind, I’m not saying that I thing either method is right or wrong, just that they should be viewed in the same light.

And let’s not act like the church has ever changed it’s position on issues before or that God has never permitted his people to partke in activities that he doesn’t like

Remember, the Church does not condemn avoiding pregnancy when a couple has just reasons. Nor does She condemn infertile couples engaging in the marital act.
In your extreme example, you are correct. Marrying with the intention to perpetually prevent conception would be wrong, as would any use of NFP if no just/serious reasons are present.

Okay, so let’s break it down. When a man and wife engage in sexual relations, it must be in a natural way, meaning vaginal intercourse with the husband climaxing within his wife’s vagina. And it must be consensual and loving, never forced or degrading. This is what is meant by procreative and unitive. Each and every act must be according to these principles. Violating either principle makes the act not a marital act. The Church has objected to the view that the overall pattern of relations in a marriage is what matters, and has said that it is necessary for the two ends of the marital act to never be separated. This is an important point. For example, if half of the sexual encounters, a husband is loving and gentle with his wife, is it okay for the other half of the sexual encounters, the husband is forceful and degrading to her? No, of course not. His behavior would violate the unitive principle. In a similar way, each and every act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife must be in the natural way, ordered to procreation. They do not need to seek to conceive, but they must not act against conception. If conception is likely, because the wife is in her fertile time, they are free to abstain from intercourse. That is choosing not to engage in an act, rather than engaging in an act, while at the same time acting against a natural end of the act. Do you see the difference now? I hope I explained that well. I understand that the terminology the Church uses is different from the culture at large, and in some ways is different from medical terminology. But if we actually go to the magisterial documents, and read the terminology in context, with the definition of terms provided right there with the use of the terms, it is much easier to begin to see the vision the Church is trying to communicate with us. It is a paradigm shift. Sometimes that shift happens suddenly and joyfully, other times it happens quietly over time, and sometimes it happens with much frustration and confusion and doubt until it finally shifts into focus. So your questions are good ones, and I believe if you keep going, and keep reading (especially Humane Vitae, which is what caused that shift within me), you will experience a moment of metanoia that will surprise you!

 

[CatholicSooner]

But your continued refusal to acknowledge what the Church actually says, and to insist that it says something else, .

where have I done this?

 

[CatholicSooner]

Like another poster, I suspect that your equating NFP to contraception is caused by inexperience with conservative NFP and the real sacrifices involved in practicing it. If you had more experience, the differences between the two would be quite vivid.

I understand what conservative NFP is. I understand what condoms are. The differences in how they are used are different. The reason for using is not in most cases and have the same end result

 

[CatholicSooner]

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?

my goodness, I have gone over this already. the act is taking place…during infertile not procreative times. You are abstaingin when fertile and having sex when infertile. So you are removing procreative nature when you are only having sex during fertile times. It will me impossible to procreate using NFP!

just b/c you don’t like the answer people give doesn’t mean people haven’t answered your two precious questions.

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

See above. By not using the fertile time to procreate.

 

[CatholicSooner]

But he has the idea of “reasons” confused. There are but 2 reasons to use NFP - to get pregnant or to avoid pregnancy at this time.

Or using NPF to never get pregnant…

That is - he tries to argue that both fail to meet the Church standard of unitive + procreative. This leaves the option of rejecting both or choosing either!

this is true.