Exactly how is NFP (Natural Family Planning) NOT just another form of birth control?

[Janet_S]

Yes relativism has gone wild, to the tune of 98% of the entire population of the country. You are in a 2% position claiming that everyone by you is immoral. I think that wuold cause me to rethink things a tiny bit.

Look at the thousands of generations before us who thought it was a good practice to reserve sex for marriage. Does it make you rethink your position since you are really the one in the minority?

Why does our generation think it is impossible for people to control sex and reserve it for marriage when the thousands of generations before us (including my parent’s generation) not only thought it was possible but actually did it? We’re not that special, and human nature hasn’t changed a bit. The only thing about us is that we refuse to recognize that certain actions are immoral and have predictable consequences.

I challenge anyone who likes to think of sex as just another natural function, but not any more special than shaking hands or bowling. Here is my challenge:

For the next 30 years, act on every sexual impulse you have. Do it as much as you like, with whomever you like, wherever and whenever you want to. Then come back and tell me how your life went.

 

[bugz2007]

Bugz… love your posts, but there may be a fine point here that needs clarification.

"a couple should not marry if they will never plan to have children" is true. IF a couple has no intention of ever having children, (assuming child bearing years) then they should not get married. What would be the point to saying “yes” to “Are you willing to accept children if God Blesses you with them” at your wedding? Same reason a man that is impotent (permanately) is not to get married. But I suppose this will take us into the "the woman is post menopause, so “can’t they get married?” argument. Yes they can but they must be willing to have children if God sends one their way, however unlikely. I’m sure that would send chuckles to all the witnesses at a wedding of octogenerians, but the same rules apply no matter what age.

Again, this has to do with intent. And some will want to argue this fringe point or that… Again, the intent is that a couple should not expect sex without regard to the consequences inherent in doing so.

A couple may use NFP for any “just” cause. Posted numerous times elsewhere so I won’t repeat them here. And Yes, a couple could forgo planning to have their own by adopting or foster parenting.

Complete abstenence… I can not imagine a marriage this way but it appears to be acceptable (with mutual consent) of a couple because the Church does not require a frequency of marital relations.

We don’t deny that some that practice NFP may be doing so for selfish reasons. God will sort them out. Not our job. What we know is that NFP is allowed by the Church and to proclaim that the Church is wrong about that is similar to stating it is wrong about contraception.

I guess some folks just require “black and white.” or “a line on the floor.” NFP seems, to some, to be a grey area. It’s clearer than that, really, but some don’t understand.

Thanks for clarifying. I’m just glad that someone acknowledged my post.

 

[newbetx]

In SpiritMeadow’s defence… She comes from a background of Athiesm. The concept of “humans are just a higher form of animal with animal characteristics and drive” is part of that non-religious thought process. Also, we here in America have an ingrained sense of democracy. Where majority “rules.” Which leads to “How can our society survive if the minority is oppressed?” However, America, today, has flipped this by putting the desires (notice I did not say needs) of a minority of people above those of the majority. All should be provided their needs as outlined in the Declaration and Constitution and certainly with respect to God’s will. We seem to forget that the US was founded on the basis that we have a need and basic right to worship God. Without this, the US will cease to exist. The Anti-religious are in a minority here but are using their leverage to suppress the majority. Those views, which are attractive to many, are part of the problem we have in society today.

SpiritMeadow is allowed to think anything she wants. God grants us that freedom. She is allowed to state what she thinks. Our Constitution guarantees it. What I don’t think she understands is that while it appears that we may be attacking her we really are arguing against her basic beliefs with ours. We really desire to encourage her to think differently than she currently does on some subjects because many of us understand what she seems to be missing. (Based totally on what she has posted, not on us knowing her personally) But if one never had something, it’s hard to recognize that one is missing it. I know that I, too, once believed as she did about many, many things. I’ve come to understand my ignorance and I am now confident (with His grace) I will continue to overcome it.

 

[Yazzy1200]

I am currently reading John Paul II’s Theology of The Body. Although I haven’t gotten to the part about NFP, the book offers LOADS of insight into the union of soul and body, of man and woman, of humanity and God and also deals with many sexual issues as it pertains to the sacredness of such a gift. John Paul is no prude, moreover, he throughly explains the theology behind these issues with great insight and criticizes modern societies distorted way of thinking about human sexuality. TOB is Highly recommended.

-Mike Y

 

[utunumsint]

Certainly, NFP is far less problematic then conventional contraceptive methods. With NFP, the marital act can be completed and there is no possibility of abortifacience, however, the motivation to practice NFP is no different than that of using chemicals or barriers: the elimination of the possibility of conception. Instead of using chemicals or barriers, NFP merely uses “timing” to prevent conception.

In determining the objective morality of an act, we must not only look at the end results, but also the motivation or intent.

Most of the people whom I know who promote NFP have a vested interest in doing so because they practice it and are trying to avoid conception, so I have difficulty seeing their viewpoints as imparital and objective.

Exactly how is NFP (Natural Family Planning) NOT just another form of birth control?

Where the heck is Lepanto?

 

[newbetx]

Where the heck is Lepanto?

Boise… according to the profile.

One could assume the OP got disgusted with the tangents of the thread or just posted the question to let others debate it. It is a rather old thread.

 

[newbetx]

I am currently reading John Paul II’s Theology of The Body. Although I haven’t gotten to the part about NFP, the book offers LOADS of insight into the union of soul and body, of man and woman, of humanity and God and also deals with many sexual issues as it pertains to the sacredness of such a gift. John Paul is no prude, moreover, he throughly explains the theology behind these issues with great insight and criticizes modern societies distorted way of thinking about human sexuality. TOB is Highly recommended.

-Mike Y

Two thumbs up in my opin! What I like about it is how TOB helped form a basis for me to understand the other faith positions and dogmas. They are so intertwined. TOB amazes me.

 

[Geremia]

St. Paul recommended abstinence to married couples in order to cultivate their spiritual life. Do you think Pope Pius XI disagreed with St. Paul in this respect?

No, but it seems Pope Paul VI does when he advocates “periodic continence” in Humanæ Vitæ.

Value of Self-Discipline

1. The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers.

If the underlined sentence above were something like “This is especially clear in the practice of continence in marriage,” this section of Humanæ Vitæ would make sense. It seems to me that Pope Paul VI says that we should only be selfless and continent sometimes.

Whence does this “periodic continence” concept of self-discipline originate, that those married should be continent sometimes and not other times? I know there are other discussions on CAF on this, but maybe you can provide a concise answer? The whole validity of NFP appears to rest on this. Thanks.

 

[Geremia]

In addition to the very important marital bonding that LJN21 pointed out there are are even further reasons I would name. What periodic continence brings to marriage is sacrifice. Total abstinence is a total sacrifice. But we know, that after a while, total abstinence also becomes a habit. Periodic abstinence is very much like fasting. I know many post menopausal couples who practice periodic continence as a Lenten sacrifice. They don’t do it for the avoidance of pregnancy, (obviously.) They abstain as a sacrifice.

I think you might be able to answer my question on “periodic continence” posed here. Thanks.

 

[newbetx]

No, but it seems Pope Paul VI does when he advocates “periodic continence” in Humanæ Vitæ.

If the underlined sentence above were something like “This is especially clear in the practice of continence in marriage,” this section of Humanæ Vitæ would make sense. It seems to me that Pope Paul VI says that we should only be selfless and continent sometimes.

Whence does this “periodic continence” concept of self-discipline originate, that those married should be continent sometimes and not other times? I know there are other discussions on CAF on this, but maybe you can provide a concise answer? The whole validity of NFP appears to rest on this. Thanks.

Might I suggest you start another thread so more people could benefit from the discussion?

 

[LJN21]

Moved it to the other thread.

 

[Geremia]

Might I suggest you start another thread so more people could benefit from the discussion?

Yes, thank you, I started this thread.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow,

I already re-thought my position and came to believe what the Church teaches after using contraception. The Church didn’t make a mistake; I did.

As far as judgmental attitudes, sin such as pride is a problem for many people, including people who argue both for and against the Church teachings. Everyone should check their own eyes for logs. There is nothing cruel about the Church teachings. If they were followed, STDs and out-of-wedlock pregnancy wouldn’t be problems. The problem is people don’t follow the Church teachings. That brings us back to the problem of sin, which is a very old problem.

If sex is merely a biological function, wouldn’t a large part of the biological function be reproduction? Yet, the Church does *not *see sex as merely a biological function of reproduction, hence the Church allows natural family planning.

I recognize that there would be no problem or few if all people simply followed Catholic doctrine. But that is not the case, and it never has been, and it seems it never ever will be. Most people are not Catholic, most Catholics hugely don’t agree. Most people are not prepared to treat sex as something done by the calendar in some rote fashion. The real world exists and in it are people with disease and terrible circumstances. It is cruel to insist on a means of behavior that requires first of all adherence ot a dogma not shared by the vast majority of people on the planet.

I know it allows some folks to believe that they are the top of the heap in terms of being “good”. Some people need this, some want it. But you are such a tiny minority, and you ask a complete overhaul of the planet and its thinking. It hasn’t come close in 2000 years, and in fact its quickly going in the other direction. Is this how you see God?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Look at the thousands of generations before us who thought it was a good practice to reserve sex for marriage. Does it make you rethink your position since you are really the one in the minority?

Why does our generation think it is impossible for people to control sex and reserve it for marriage when the thousands of generations before us (including my parent’s generation) not only thought it was possible but actually did it? We’re not that special, and human nature hasn’t changed a bit. The only thing about us is that we refuse to recognize that certain actions are immoral and have predictable consequences.

I challenge anyone who likes to think of sex as just another natural function, but not any more special than shaking hands or bowling. Here is my challenge:

For the next 30 years, act on every sexual impulse you have. Do it as much as you like, with whomever you like, wherever and whenever you want to. Then come back and tell me how your life went.

But it never has been much better. You produce no statistics whatsoever. you just claim “our parents did it” . Do you really think your parents necessarily share the truth of their lives before marriage with you? There has always been premarital sex, there has always been promiscuity, there has always been unwed mothers. They have gone up and down over the ages. You refer to a time in history that you do not even make an attempt to document with anything but mere assertions.

To suggest that sex is just a biological function is not the point. It is, but as sentient creations we can and do for the most part attach more significance to it. It is everyone’s right to attach as much or as little as they wish. You are free to follow whatever dogmas work for you. It’s the condemnatory nature of the attacks that I find unacceptable. You are simply in a horrific minority. Yet no one is shaming you for being backward or psychologically wacked. You are not, you are merely following what you believe. Be generous enough to realize that 98% of the American population also have good reasons for their choices.

 

[adrift]

SpiritMeadow Most people are not prepared to treat sex as something done by the calendar in some rote fashion

You haven’t the slightest idea of how NFP works or you wouldn’t have made such a ridiculous ignorant statement.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

In SpiritMeadow’s defence… She comes from a background of Athiesm. The concept of “humans are just a higher form of animal with animal characteristics and drive” is part of that non-religious thought process. Also, we here in America have an ingrained sense of democracy. Where majority “rules.” Which leads to “How can our society survive if the minority is oppressed?” However, America, today, has flipped this by putting the desires (notice I did not say needs) of a minority of people above those of the majority. All should be provided their needs as outlined in the Declaration and Constitution and certainly with respect to God’s will. We seem to forget that the US was founded on the basis that we have a need and basic right to worship God. Without this, the US will cease to exist. The Anti-religious are in a minority here but are using their leverage to suppress the majority. Those views, which are attractive to many, are part of the problem we have in society today.

SpiritMeadow is allowed to think anything she wants. God grants us that freedom. She is allowed to state what she thinks. Our Constitution guarantees it. What I don’t think she understands is that while it appears that we may be attacking her we really are arguing against her basic beliefs with ours. We really desire to encourage her to think differently than she currently does on some subjects because many of us understand what she seems to be missing. (Based totally on what she has posted, not on us knowing her personally) But if one never had something, it’s hard to recognize that one is missing it. I know that I, too, once believed as she did about many, many things. I’ve come to understand my ignorance and I am now confident (with His grace) I will continue to overcome it.

Please refrain from speaking “for” me. you are mostly wrong, You are insulting.

 

[Janet_S]

In SpiritMeadow’s defence… She comes from a background of Athiesm. The concept of “humans are just a higher form of animal with animal characteristics and drive” is part of that non-religious thought process. Also, we here in America have an ingrained sense of democracy. Where majority “rules.” Which leads to “How can our society survive if the minority is oppressed?” However, America, today, has flipped this by putting the desires (notice I did not say needs) of a minority of people above those of the majority. All should be provided their needs as outlined in the Declaration and Constitution and certainly with respect to God’s will. We seem to forget that the US was founded on the basis that we have a need and basic right to worship God. Without this, the US will cease to exist. The Anti-religious are in a minority here but are using their leverage to suppress the majority. Those views, which are attractive to many, are part of the problem we have in society today.

SpiritMeadow is allowed to think anything she wants. God grants us that freedom. She is allowed to state what she thinks. Our Constitution guarantees it. What I don’t think she understands is that while it appears that we may be attacking her we really are arguing against her basic beliefs with ours. We really desire to encourage her to think differently than she currently does on some subjects because many of us understand what she seems to be missing. (Based totally on what she has posted, not on us knowing her personally) But if one never had something, it’s hard to recognize that one is missing it. I know that I, too, once believed as she did about many, many things. I’ve come to understand my ignorance and I am now confident (with His grace) I will continue to overcome it.

Yes, I came from the same atheistic and liberal/relativistic background, so I know what you’re talking about. I got tired of listening to political pundits and talk show hosts and finally decided to listen to the Pope instead.

I think a lot of people (including some Catholics), do not perceive the harmony of faith and reason. They lack confidence that the Church has anything worthwhile to teach the modern world. Yet the Church’s teachings are not arbitrary and outdated; they are reasonable and timeless. The modern world would do well to listen and study.

 

[Janet_S]

But it never has been much better. You produce no statistics whatsoever. you just claim “our parents did it” . Do you really think your parents necessarily share the truth of their lives before marriage with you? There has always been premarital sex, there has always been promiscuity, there has always been unwed mothers. They have gone up and down over the ages. You refer to a time in history that you do not even make an attempt to document with anything but mere assertions.

To suggest that sex is just a biological function is not the point. It is, but as sentient creations we can and do for the most part attach more significance to it. It is everyone’s right to attach as much or as little as they wish. You are free to follow whatever dogmas work for you. It’s the condemnatory nature of the attacks that I find unacceptable. You are simply in a horrific minority. Yet no one is shaming you for being backward or psychologically wacked. You are not, you are merely following what you believe. Be generous enough to realize that 98% of the American population also have good reasons for their choices.

My parents graduated from high school in 1950. Things were a lot different then regarding premarital sex, unwed mothers, abortions, STD’s, divorce, sex education in the schools (which didn’t exist BTW). Even you would have to agree with this.

Ask your parents or aunts or uncles how many girls in their high school were unwed mothers or how many people in the family were divorced

You disagree with everything the Catholic Church stands for, yet come on this forum and call yourself a Catholic. I hope some day you do decide to take the challenge (someone else made on this thread) and really try to understand Catholic teachings. It would do you a world of good.

 

[Good_Daughter]

It is cruel to insist on a means of behavior that requires first of all adherence ot a dogma not shared by the vast majority of people on the planet.

Would you please clarify, who is insisting on a means of behaviour?

Do you find that members of this forum are advocating Catholicism be forced (or even pushed) on anyone?

 

[rlg94086]

But it never has been much better. You produce no statistics whatsoever. you just claim “our parents did it” . Do you really think your parents necessarily share the truth of their lives before marriage with you? There has always been premarital sex, there has always been promiscuity, there has always been unwed mothers. They have gone up and down over the ages. You refer to a time in history that you do not even make an attempt to document with anything but mere assertions.

To suggest that sex is just a biological function is not the point. It is, but as sentient creations we can and do for the most part attach more significance to it. It is everyone’s right to attach as much or as little as they wish. You are free to follow whatever dogmas work for you. It’s the condemnatory nature of the attacks that I find unacceptable. You are simply in a horrific minority. Yet no one is shaming you for being backward or psychologically wacked. You are not, you are merely following what you believe. Be generous enough to realize that 98% of the American population also have good reasons for their choices.

That’s a strange choice of words SpiritMeadow. Are you horrified by people who use NFP? Or, are you horrified that it is a minority?

If the former, why would you be “horrified” by Catholics following the teaching of the Catholic Church?

BTW…as far as premarital sex, promiscuity, etc - Yes, they have occurred throughout history. All sin has occurred throughout history, so I won’t even bother to make a list. We are supposed to do our best to avoid sin, repent, confess and live our lives as close to God as we can.