Humanae Vitae Debate Part III

  • Thread starter Thread starter BruceK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BruceK

Guest
**This an example of the ongoing exchange I’m having with this other person as explained in the intial post. Would be interested to know of any feedback on this and suggestions on what would be the best rebuttals to his arguments. His words are in italics.

/B]How can NFP prevent or delay conception if it is open to the transmission of life?

**BK >> Well the spouses and the act itself are still left wide open to procreation. How are they taking any action that is directly contraceptive? **<<

*This is a non-answer. If The spouses and the act itself are still left wide open to procreation, How does NFP prevent or delay conception. *

BK >> NFP does not manipulate the human reproductive cycle; <<

This is false. NFP rejects conjugal intercourse whe the female is most desirous of conjugal intercourse, thus manipulating the natrual fertility cycle.

**BK >> The cycle was “designed” that way for a reason. If it were not, all marital acts during non-menstral periods would be fertile and all marital acts would be procreative, physiologically speaking. **<<

*Very true BK. God separated the two ends of conjugal intercourse in his act of creation. If he had not, all marital acts during non-menstral periods (no pun intended) would be fertile and all marital acts would be procreative, physiologically speaking. God created virtually all other animal species so that the sex act and reproduction are “inseparably connected” - the sex act has no purpose other than reproduction. (If you want to know why, Hondo, read Casti Connubii) Hence the “inseparable connection” is false and is in fact a rejection of God’s will and not “God’s will” as HV claims. *
**Again, I looking for some good counterarguments to his claims:shrug: ****
 
The idea of the teaching is that each individual sexual act must have be open to procreation, because there is a telos or purpose to sex and when that purpose is frustrated, the act becomes a selfish one. We are not obliged to have sex at all (by being celibate for example) and we are not obliged to have sex all the time in marriage. But if individual sex acts become not about procreation but about mere titilation, the purpose is frustrated. NFP recognizes that any sex act may providentially lead to procreation. Artificial contraception deliberately frustrates that purpose for particular sex acts and, in the case of “the pill” also has abortifacient properties.

NFP is not contraceptive but it does limit the likelihood of preagnancy. That is different that doing so mechanically or chemically because there is always a chance you’ll get preaganant and a believing Catholic couple is open to that if that’s God’s will.
 
This is a continuation of ongoing debate with this other person on the issues of HV and NFP, I thought I share this most recent exchange because it is very revealing. His words are in bold:

Me: Why do you believe there is a need for artificial birth control?

Him:** I don’t believe that I stated that there was a need for ABC, but the Church teaches that there is a need for birth control. I merely argue that the Church’s edicts against ABC as stated in HV demonstrably are false. But, there is a strong, rational argument from natural law in favor of ABC, whereas there is none in support of the Church’s position. **

Me: >> If not every conjugal act is “fertile” (and we agree with that) and we have an understanding of the woman’s body, why would ABC ever be needed? That is the question you need to seriously address if you are to take thisargumetn to its most logical conclusion. <<

Him: That question is best answered by the 95% of Catholic married couples who reject HV’s edicts and use ABC. But, the answer is quite simple: conjugal intercourse plays a fundamental role in conjugal unity and lifelong marriages and ABC facilitates that role. That’s the reason that God in his act of creation separated the two purposes of conjugal intercourse.

As you can see his last paragraph is quite revealing. Any feedback or comments on this would be greatly appreciated.
 
Mansizedtarget said:
NFP is not contraceptive but it does limit the likelihood of preagnancy. That is different that doing so mechanically or chemically because there is always a chance you’ll get preaganant and a believing Catholic couple is open to that if that’s God’s will.
Click to expand...
I would like to add a clarification here to dispel a popular myth. The reason NFP is allowed is not because “there is always a chance you’ll get pregnant”. If that were the case, artificial birth control would be allowed, too because there is also always a chance you’ll get pregnant with ABC. In fact, depending upon the method, the chances are the same with both NFP and ABC.

Instead, the reason NFP is allowed is because it is in keeping with God’s plan. He made women infertile for certain periods of time, but did not forbid intercourse during those times. NFP is just intercourse during those infertile periods.
 
cam100 said:
I would like to add a clarification here to dispel a popular myth. The reason NFP is allowed is not because “there is always a chance you’ll get pregnant”. If that were the case, artificial birth control would be allowed, too because there is also always a chance you’ll get pregnant with ABC. In fact, depending upon the method, the chances are the same with both NFP and ABC.

Instead, the reason NFP is allowed is because it is in keeping with God’s plan. He made women infertile for certain periods of time, but did not forbid intercourse during those times. NFP is just intercourse during those infertile periods.
Click to expand...
True, but the argument on the other side is that it just isn’t intercourse during those infertile periods, it’s an attempt by the couple to circumvent in a natural way, the procreative aspect of the marital act.

The wording of any arguement on either side is crucial to properly explain the HV teaching in a more practical, understandable way for those who find theological language confusing.

👍
 
Too many obedient catholics lose HV debates because they allow the debate to be framed by phrases like “open to life.”

It is not the ‘openness to life’ that makes NFP acceptable. It is the maintenance of the sacred link between marital sex and the genesis of a new human person that makes it OK.

Those who reject HV implicitly accept an unreal dualism about sexuality. They think that the unitive and procreative aspects are distinct things that can be severed. What HV tries to do and JPII more clearly did was to explain that the very act of cutting off the procreative aspect ALSO disfigures and damages the procreative. By taking action to sterilize the love-making the couple subtly turns it from love into mere lust. NFP is no guarantee of chaste love-making, but ABC IS guaranteed to lead the couple towards marital destruction.

Similar situation: not everyone who forces him/herself to puke after overeating eventually becomes bulemic, but repeating the behavior more and more leads inexorably in that direction. Much healthier to lose weight by abstaining from indulging in large portions and rich foods from time to time. That can be abused as well, (anorexia) but the singular action of abstaining does not in and of itself push the practioner towards an unhealthy degree.

NFP is enormously different in its very character than ABC - that’s the WHOLE reason people don’t want to do it! It’s MUCH harder, which is why couples CAN do it and not suffer the push to lust/gluttony that ABC users get.

But don’t expect to WIN an argument. People don’t get persuaded into this. They get CONVERTED to Christ and THEN decide to give his Church a chance. Then experiencing it is what convicts them. Best just make it known you do NFP and be the best husband/wife you can be. God does the rest.
 
manualman said:
Too many obedient catholics lose HV debates because they allow the debate to be framed by phrases like “open to life.”

It is not the ‘openness to life’ that makes NFP acceptable. It is the maintenance of the sacred link between marital sex and the genesis of a new human person that makes it OK.

Those who reject HV implicitly accept an unreal dualism about sexuality. They think that the unitive and procreative aspects are distinct things that can be severed. What HV tries to do and JPII more clearly did was to explain that the very act of cutting off the procreative aspect ALSO disfigures and damages the procreative. By taking action to sterilize the love-making the couple subtly turns it from love into mere lust. NFP is no guarantee of chaste love-making, but ABC IS guaranteed to lead the couple towards marital destruction.

Similar situation: not everyone who forces him/herself to puke after overeating eventually becomes bulemic, but repeating the behavior more and more leads inexorably in that direction. Much healthier to lose weight by abstaining from indulging in large portions and rich foods from time to time. That can be abused as well, (anorexia) but the singular action of abstaining does not in and of itself push the practioner towards an unhealthy degree.

NFP is enormously different in its very character than ABC - that’s the WHOLE reason people don’t want to do it! It’s MUCH harder, which is why couples CAN do it and not suffer the push to lust/gluttony that ABC users get.

But don’t expect to WIN an argument. People don’t get persuaded into this. They get CONVERTED to Christ and THEN decide to give his Church a chance. Then experiencing it is what convicts them. Best just make it known you do NFP and be the best husband/wife you can be. God does the rest.
Click to expand...
All Very Good points! But “but ABC IS guaranteed to lead the couple towards marital destruction.” is an exageration. It says “all” not many or most. ABC is not absolutely distructive to all marriages. This is not true and weakens the argument.

I agree. One has to start with Christ, then the teachings can make sense. These teachings won’t bring one to Christ.
 
newbetx said:
All Very Good points! But “but ABC IS guaranteed to lead the couple towards marital destruction.” is an exageration. It says “all” not many or most. ABC is not absolutely distructive to all marriages. This is not true and weakens the argument.

I agree. One has to start with Christ, then the teachings can make sense. These teachings won’t bring one to Christ.
Click to expand...
I was unclear. ABC does not guarantee the marriage will self-destruct. It IS guaranteed to be a destructive influence in that marriage. That’s what sin is, almost by definition: an action that reduces our capacity to give and receive love.

Look at lies. A husband that tells a lie to his wife doesn’t AUTOMATICALLY end up divorced. But that lie inevitably leads him to another, then another… Even one lie does damage to the relationship and plants the seed for the next lie. Same thing with ABC.
 
Update on the on-going debate i’m having with my frend in regards to Humanae Vitae and NFP, his words in bold:
**Any form of contraception (including NFP) that is undertaken voluntarily is morally neutral. While there is no difference in the order of moality, there may be a difference in the order of personal perfection. God created humans so that the conjugal act serves two separate purposes - it has two separate orientations. If one wants to argue that ABC is immoral because it deprives the conjugal act of its procreative orientation, I simply point out that NFP does also, and must therefore be judged immoral by the same ratonale. I personally find nothing immoral in NFP simply because it excludes procreation in order to pursue conjugal pleasure (unification). HV(Humanae Vitae) even sanctions that - which sanction contradicts HV11 and HV12 **
So I ask what’s the best response to this?
 
BruceK said:
Update on the on-going debate i’m having with my frend in regards to Humanae Vitae and NFP, his words in bold:
**Any form of contraception (including NFP) that is undertaken voluntarily is morally neutral. While there is no difference in the order of moality, there may be a difference in the order of personal perfection. God created humans so that the conjugal act serves two separate purposes - it has two separate orientations. If one wants to argue that ABC is immoral because it deprives the conjugal act of its procreative orientation, I simply point out that NFP does also, and must therefore be judged immoral by the same ratonale. I personally find nothing immoral in NFP simply because it excludes procreation in order to pursue conjugal pleasure (unification). HV(Humanae Vitae) even sanctions that - which sanction contradicts HV11 and HV12 **
So I ask what’s the best response to this?
Click to expand...
God created the conjugal act (vaginal intercourse/sex) to to serve two purposes: procreation and union. Check. They cannot be moraly separated. Making a baby without the union of sex (In Vitro Fertilization) is not allowed. Union with the “direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.” HV14

Pro (for) creation (the act of producing, causing to exist). Procreation and conception are not the same thing. Procreation and fertility are not the same thing. Procreation is doing all that man and woman must do to become father and mother. Therefore, if a couple does all that they have to do to become mother and father, and no baby is made, thier sex is still procreative. It is for creation, creation may or may not happen.

NFP uses sex when conception is not likely for pleasure/union, but it in no way prevents conception from happening. NFP sex is still “for creation” (capable of creation). Contracepted sex is not “for creation” (incapable, at least by intention, of creation) it is for pleasure.

This is largely where the distinction lies. NFP can still be used with a contraceptive mentality.
 
Red_Beard said:
Pro (for) creation (the act of producing, causing to exist). Procreation and conception are not the same thing. Procreation and fertility are not the same thing. Procreation is doing all that man and woman must do to become father and mother. Therefore, if a couple does all that they have to do to become mother and father, and no baby is made, thier sex is still procreative. It is for creation, creation may or may not happen.
Click to expand...
Just one subtle clarification - pro in this sense doesn’t mean “for” procreation comes from procreare - pro meaning “forth” ; to bring forth creation. it isn’t simply the opposite of “against creation.” Your argument still holds “creation still may or may not happen” though. 👍

However, if the father and mother are deliberately having sex at a time during which they know the woman isn’t fertile then are they still acting procreatively? I don’t know the answer to this, I’ve oftened stumbled on this myself.
 
BruceK said:
Update on the on-going debate i’m having with my frend in regards to Humanae Vitae and NFP, his words in bold:
Any form of contraception (including NFP) that is undertaken voluntarily is morally neutral. While there is no difference in the order of moality, there may be a difference in the order of personal perfection. God created humans so that the conjugal act serves two separate purposes - it has two separate orientations. If one wants to argue that ABC is immoral because it deprives the conjugal act of its procreative orientation, I simply point out that NFP does also, and must therefore be judged immoral by the same ratonale. I personally find nothing immoral in NFP simply because it excludes procreation in order to pursue conjugal pleasure (unification). HV(Humanae Vitae) even sanctions that - which sanction contradicts HV11 and HV12
So I ask what’s the best response to this?
Click to expand...
Red Beard is right. Lack of understanding of the “nature” of the act. It serves two purposes simultaneously.

You know this guy is going to lead you around by the nose if you can’t get him to back up and look at the bigger picture. Any way to do that?
 
Deliberately having sex when the woman is infertile is still procreative if they are doing all that is necessary to get pregnant.

Look at it this way: Once a month a famous golfer invites you to play golf with him. You know every month when that invitation is going to come. You can still golf any other time and there is nothing wrong with it, but only once a month is the famous golfer going to be there. You may have a good reason to not go when he is there, so you don’t go. You decline the invitation. If by some miracle or fluke he does happen to be there other than his regular time, you are surprised, but you knew that this is his country club, and you are okay with it.

Now, there is this other golfer that gets the same invitation once a month. He hates this famous golfer, doesn’t bother reading the invitation, goes golfing, and gets very angry when he gets there and proceeds to beat up the famous golfer to play his round in peace.

This is the difference between NFP and ABC. Personal awareness and good conduct within the system to achieve your goal, or selfish disregard for the system, and abuse to achieve your goal.
 
see the part that I get hung up on - and the part where I think many people outside the Catholic faith get hung up is the fact that NFP exists and the Catholic faith acknowledges that there are valid reasons for the spacing of children and planning a family. If you look at the Family forum you’ll see many people talking of how great NPF is and how nearly 100% effective it is. Extolling the benefits of NPF and why would anyone want to use ABC when NPF is so effective. Effective at what then?? Effective at stopping a woman from getting pregnant by ensuring that sex only happens during the times of the month when she is not fertile.

That is what I think the OP’s friend is getting at. And that’s probably what we need more clarification on. 🙂

Like I said, I don’t have the answers to this and it’s something I toss around in my mind and I try to make it fit. 🤷
 
fnz2thrght said:
see the part that I get hung up on - and the part where I think many people outside the Catholic faith get hung up is the fact that NFP exists and the Catholic faith acknowledges that there are valid reasons for the spacing of children and planning a family. If you look at the Family forum you’ll see many people talking of how great NPF is and how nearly 100% effective it is. Extolling the benefits of NPF and why would anyone want to use ABC when NPF is so effective. Effective at what then?? Effective at stopping a woman from getting pregnant by ensuring that sex only happens during the times of the month when she is not fertile.

That is what I think the OP’s friend is getting at. And that’s probably what we need more clarification on. 🙂

Like I said, I don’t have the answers to this and it’s something I toss around in my mind and I try to make it fit. 🤷
Click to expand...
TOB has the answers. Go read about it. Christopher West’s “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” puts it all in proper perspective in an easy to read book.

We are up against a divide and conquer debate. They will debate to death little things. What this is all about (to many of us and God) is the BIG picture. The overall outcome. Once you allow them to believe (and yes they believe it strongly) that it is their right to have sex anyway they want with whomever agrees anytime they want without consequence, we have an uphill battle. The LIE here is “without consequence”. When you go against the nature of sex, there is a consequence. They just don’t want to believe it. They think its just pregnancy, but it’s a ton more than that as the stats of the trouble of the “sexually liberated” show.
 
newbetx said:
TOB has the answers. Go read about it. Christopher West’s “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” puts it all in proper perspective in an easy to read book.

We are up against a divide and conquer debate. They will debate to death little things. What this is all about (to many of us and God) is the BIG picture. The overall outcome. Once you allow them to believe (and yes they believe it strongly) that it is their right to have sex anyway they want with whomever agrees anytime they want without consequence, we have an uphill battle. The LIE here is “without consequence”. When you go against the nature of sex, there is a consequence. They just don’t want to believe it. They think its just pregnancy, but it’s a ton more than that as the stats of the trouble of the “sexually liberated” show.
Click to expand...
Hmm, well I don’t quite see that what non-Catholics do in the bedroom is really any of my business frankly and that’s certainly not what I’m going after. I think they can believe whatever they want about sex and birth control. I understand that as Catholics we are held to our own standard and we think it’s a higher standard but last I knew we were forcing the birth control debate on non-Catholics.

Are we?

Or are you talking about something completely different than I???
 
fnz2thrght said:
Hmm, well I don’t quite see that what non-Catholics do in the bedroom is really any of my business frankly and that’s certainly not what I’m going after. I think they can believe whatever they want about sex and birth control. I understand that as Catholics we are held to our own standard and we think it’s a higher standard but last I knew we were forcing the birth control debate on non-Catholics.

Are we?

Or are you talking about something completely different than I???
Click to expand...
Now I’m not sure we’re on the same page… :hypno: But I will comment on the Catholic or not thing. Really, TOB isn’t specifically Catholic. It is Christian based since it’s based on both the new and old testaments. But not specifically Catholic. And last I knew, we don’t hold ourselves to a higher standard. We are called to live to THE standard. If others don’t want to live to that standard, they are free not to do so. The question isn’t who is allowed to believe what…it’s what who is expected to believe. But this isn’t the point of the thread.
fnz2thrght said:
see the part that I get hung up on - and the part where I think many people outside the Catholic faith get hung up is the fact that NFP exists and the Catholic faith acknowledges that there are valid reasons for the spacing of children and planning a family. If you look at the Family forum you’ll see many people talking of how great NPF is and how nearly 100% effective it is. Extolling the benefits of NPF and why would anyone want to use ABC when NPF is so effective. Effective at what then?? Effective at stopping a woman from getting pregnant by ensuring that sex only happens during the times of the month when she is not fertile.

That is what I think the OP’s friend is getting at. And that’s probably what we need more clarification on. 🙂

Like I said, I don’t have the answers to this and it’s something I toss around in my mind and I try to make it fit. 🤷
Click to expand...
The statements in bold are the ones I thought I was replying to with:
TOB has the answers. Go read about it. Christopher West’s “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” puts it all in proper perspective in an easy to read book.
Click to expand...
I guess I got the impression you may not have read about it, so this was my suggestion.

And I tried (poorly, apparently) to state that the debate methodology the ABC guy is using is one that is difficult to beat. They ASSUME things in their side that aren’t assumed on the TOB side. So if the base assumptions are different, then the debate can not end because there is no common basis. So, the same would be true about praying the rosary. If debating its value with an athiest, I’m afraid we wouldn’t get very far.

I am convinced that TOB is “not just for Catholics anymore.” NFP isn’t. As others have stated, many in their classes are NOT Catholic!

So does this post make more or less sense?
 
Here’s a follow up on the conversation I’ve have having with this other on the aformentioned controversy; His words are in bold.

**God separated the two ends of conjugal intercourse in his act of creation. If he had not, all marital acts during non-menstral periods (no pun intended) would be fertile and all marital acts would be procreative, physiologically speaking. God created virtually all other animal species so that the sex act and reproduction are “inseparably connected” - the sex act has no purpose other than reproduction. << **

BK >> Yes, There are two roles to Intercourse. TRUE! And God separated them for a reason <<

**>> Since you agree that God created humans so that the two purposes of conjugal intercourse are separate (not inseparably connected), then it follows that HV12’s “inseparable connection” is false and HV’s claim that the “inseparable connection” is God’s will is in fact a rejection of God’s will as known through His act of creation. **
Can anyone make heads or tails out of this last paragraph? I know something is flawed with his reasoning, but exactly what and how? Any feed back would be appreciated
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top