Is NFP "Open to life"?

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, what makes you think that the intent of an act is the only important aspect when it comes to morality? Please forgive me if I’m reading that meaning into your post, that’s just what I came away with after reading it. As an analogy, think of two people with the intent to serve God with equal fervor. Let’s say we have a Christian who gives his life as a martyr, and a radical Muslim who gives his life as a suicide bomber. Both intend to give their lives to serve God, but the Christian is doing so in a morally licit way and the radical Muslim is not. Is it not true that the objective morality of the act is also vitally important?

But the objective morality of NFP is also to prevent conception. How different is it from say withdrawal method?

Besides, you analogy fails in that no one intends to be a martyr. That choice presents itself when it is already there right in front of us. A suicide bomber can plan for months what they need to do. A martyr does not plan on being a martyr. NFP, like ABCs, take a lot of planning.

 

[babochka]

How? If you are using it to avoid getting pregnant, how is that a presupposition? And have you even attended an NFP seminar? They market it so much that it is more effective in preventing pregnancies than most ABCs. I fail to see where the openness to life is.

Because there is an acknowledgement that the possibility of pregnancy is intrinsic to the sexual act. We are not required to have sex anytime we feel the urge. In fact, coming apart for a time of prayer is biblical.

I agree that it is possible to practice NFP with a “contraceptive mentality” and that such attitude is often promoted. Notably, the Couple to Couple League absolutely does not push that attitude. I have practiced NFP (as in charting my fertility) for the entire 11 years of my marriage. I have 5 children, ages 10,8,6,5,4, and 2. I have never needed to use the knowledge of my body and my fertility to avoid pregnancy, but I am grateful that I have the ability to do so if necessary.

 

[JK8619]

I used to differentiate NFP to non-abortive ABCs as well until someone made me realize that we’re are just fooling ourselves with that point of view. If one uses NFP to avoid conception, then it is the same as using non-abortive ABCs. The intent is certainly the same.

Totally agree.

 

[SusanneT]

There is no doubt that when a couple practise NFP the actual physical act is open to life.

I’m also sure that many couples who practise NFP are simply trying to avoid delay or space out pregnancies if possible but remain truely open to life as they do so in that they would not only welcome conception if it did happen but would also not think of it as NFP having failed.

But I’m sure that many couples (or one or other party in the couple) use MFP (for whatever reason) because they want to remain sexually active but definately do NOT want a pregnancy to result. Of course if I does they will accept that and of course each act is “open” - but are they truely open to life - only they know that - it’s not for others to say.

PS - it would be nice to hear more women in this debate !!!

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I have 5 children, ages 10,8,6,5,4, and 2.

I’m sorry to say you’ve miscounted.

 

[paperwight66]

That’s really funny - well-spotted.

 

[babochka]

I’m sorry to say you’ve miscounted.

Oh, I so wish I could edit this post. That’s what I get for trying to put in one last comment as my husband looks over my shoulder, asking if I’m going to bed anytime soon. The 4 year old is going to turn 5 on Sunday. I’ve already made the mental leap. I’ve so enjoyed the mathematical satisfaction of having children 2,4,6,8 and 10.

 

[Brendan]

How? If you are using it to avoid getting pregnant, how is that a presupposition? And have you even attended an NFP seminar? They market it so much that it is more effective in preventing pregnancies than most ABCs. I fail to see where the openness to life is.

There is more to ‘intent’ than end goal. Means are a matter of intent as well. It is something that one makes an act of the will to do.

The intent with ABC is to nullify and alter the gift of fertility as God has given it to the spouses.

In NFP, the intent is to accept the gift of fertility exactly as God has given it to each spouse.

In ABC, one seeks to alter the person of the spouse in a way rejects their God given fertility. NFP does not do that, there is no rejection, just acceptance and love.

The intent is therefore clearly NOT the same.

 

[ChrisB103]

Chris, I understand what you’re saying and I of course am aware of the official stance of the church. I just happen to disagree with some of these rules that were created by the church.

I believe that just because something isn’t ideal, doesn’t mean there’s no love involved. As parents, we want to protect our kids, and contraceptives can certainly protect them in times of poor judgment.

I had a lot of experience in my past where I saw things in black and white on certain issues, and it really damaged my relationships with people. I would hope no one would have to go through what I did and experience the harsh lesson of clinging to idealism and not being open to other possibilities of truth. Anyway, I’m not saying you are right or wrong Chris, I’m just sharing my opinion.

Honestly, I understand the desire to think in this way, and I fully believe that you’re seeking to love your kids through your actions. However, I still think it’s undeniable that it’s possible that in trying to do good for someone else we can actually harm them. Certainly, I don’t think that’s your intent, otherwise you wouldn’t even bother being here discussing this. Consider this argument from 1flesh.org: The Philosophy of Contraception

Your post makes you sound like you accept relativism. Would you say this is correct?

 

[ChrisB103]

But the objective morality of NFP is also to prevent conception. How different is it from say withdrawal method?

Besides, you analogy fails in that no one intends to be a martyr. That choice presents itself when it is already there right in front of us. A suicide bomber can plan for months what they need to do. A martyr does not plan on being a martyr. NFP, like ABCs, take a lot of planning.

The point of my analogy is to use an obvious example to demonstrate that an end does not justify the means. I don’t see how the extent of planning performed changes the meaning of my analogy. And even if you disagree with my previous support of the analogy, it’s still true that many martyrs have time to contemplate and come to terms with their martyrdom before it actually occurs. They live out the last moments of their lives serving God by choice, only they do it in a morally licit way (as opposed to suicide bombers).

And I’ll let the Catechism of the Catholic Church explain how using NFP is different than using the withdrawal method, for it explains it much more eloquently than I can.

CCC 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:
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."

 

[jilly4ski]

But the objective morality of NFP is also to prevent conception. How different is it from say withdrawal method?

Besides, you analogy fails in that no one intends to be a martyr. That choice presents itself when it is already there right in front of us. A suicide bomber can plan for months what they need to do. A martyr does not plan on being a martyr. NFP, like ABCs, take a lot of planning.

Wait, so are you saying a couple cannot completely abstain because their intent is to avoid conception? Because that is the logical conclusion to your first statement.

I think what we need to convey is that the objective intent to avoid children/pregnancy is not immoral. The Church does ask us to come to this intent carefully, but the intent to avoid pregnancy is not objectively immoral.

Like 1ke said contraception including withdrawal, disorders the marital act. Withdrawing from ones spouse is not how the act was intended to be, nor loving to either spouse. (The same logic can be applied to all contraception). But when using periodic continence (which is what using NFP to avoid is) the act remains the same. You are choosing to either engage in the marital act or not, but you are not disordering the act itself.

 

[thewanderer]

Wait, so are you saying a couple cannot completely abstain because their intent is to avoid conception? Because that is the logical conclusion to your first statement.

I think what we need to convey is that the objective intent to avoid children/pregnancy is not immoral. The Church does ask us to come to this intent carefully, but the intent to avoid pregnancy is not objectively immoral.

Like 1ke said contraception including withdrawal, disorders the marital act. Withdrawing from ones spouse is not how the act was intended to be, nor loving to either spouse. (The same logic can be applied to all contraception). But when using periodic continence (which is what using NFP to avoid is) the act remains the same. You are choosing to either engage in the marital act or not, but you are not disordering the act itself.

OP, you are correct in pointing out that the intention, to avoid/delay children, is the same in both cases. This is absolutely 100% true. The thing is, the Church nowhere says that this intent is wrong. In fact, the Church explicitly says that this intent is aok so long as you aren’t being selfish, ie, so long as you have serious/just reasons to avoid. The Church does not distinguish ABC from NFP based on intent, but rather on means. What the Church says is that it is wrong to have sex while removing ones fertility from that act. All forms of ABC do this. NFP does not. NFP has two steps. 1 - Gain information about yourself. 2 - Use this information as a factor in making a decision to either have relations or abstain. Neither of these steps messes with your fertility or tries to take an actual sexual act and remove the possibility of procreation from that particular act. When people talk about the importance of being ‘open to life’ what they really mean is that the act must be ordered to life, in other words, that it is wrong to take something that is ordered correctly and mess with it to disorder it. Yes, the term ‘Open to Life’ is very misleading and has caused much confusion about the Church’s position, and ultimately led many to believe, as you are now leaning to, that the Church is wrong to make a distinction between ABC and NFP. The thing is though, that if you actually understand what the Church teaches you will see that it is very reasonable and in fact 100% logical.

 

[ValPal]

The thing is though, that if you actually understand what the Church teaches you will see that it is very reasonable and in fact 100% logical.

I am a college-educated individual (which includes logic courses) and well read on the matter. I can’t follow the logic and is makes no sense to me.

Simply stating that we must have sex the way God intended it (no barriers) makes sense. Once the “open to life,” “ordered toward procreation,” etc. get mixed up with intentionally having sex when one is infertile, you’ve lost me, because the logic becomes self-contradictory.

 

[thewanderer]

I am a college-educated individual (which includes logic courses) and well read on the matter. I can’t follow the logic and is makes no sense to me.

Simply stating that we must have sex the way God intended it (no barriers) makes sense. Once the “open to life,” “ordered toward procreation,” etc. get mixed up with intentionally having sex when one is infertile, you’ve lost me, because the logic becomes self-contradictory.

Well, thats what I mean, those terms are very confusing. I dislike them precisely for that reason. The reason it seems contradictory is because many people either don’t understand the Church’s teaching themselves or use ambiguous terms and phrases such as “open to life” which really just end up making people, like youself confused about it all. Don’t get caught up in all that. When I say ordered to procreation all I mean is what you yourself said above, having sex the way God intended. Really, even I should have been more careful, instead of saying ordered to procreation it is probably even better to phrase it by saying don’t do anything to disorder what God has already ordered correctly. ie, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Don’t allow yourself to get confused by the misunderstandings/ambiguous language of others. It sounds like you have understood the Church’s teaching correctly, so if you hear people speaking otherwisse either just ignore them or correct them so that they can learn what the Church actually teaches and to use less ambiguous language.

 

[Brendan]

I am a college-educated individual (which includes logic courses) and well read on the matter. I can’t follow the logic and is makes no sense to me.

Simply stating that we must have sex the way God intended it (no barriers) makes sense. Once the “open to life,” “ordered toward procreation,” etc. get mixed up with intentionally having sex when one is infertile, you’ve lost me, because the logic becomes self-contradictory.

The key is “as God indented”

It would be logical to deduce that God did not design the female reproductive system to reproduce every time that the sexual act was done, God created times of fecundity and infertility.

Ergo in God’s intent, not every sexual act was to produce offspring.

Now let’s look at the term ‘ordered’, what does that mean. To means directed towards and enabled. Look at the Sacrament of Holy ORDERS. A priest is Ontologically Ordered to confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist and to forgive sins in Absolution.

The nature of the priesthood is to do just that, and a priest is perpetually Ordered towards confecting the Eucharist. But that does not mean that a priest is perpetually in the process of Confecting the Eucharist.

The marital act is perpetually Ordered towards the creation of new life. But like Holy Orders, it does not logically follow that the Order towards means perpetually doing.

The introduction of ABC denies the ordering of the marital act against procreation in favor of ordering towards it towards rejection.

 

[thewanderer]

I am a college-educated individual (which includes logic courses) and well read on the matter. I can’t follow the logic and is makes no sense to me.

Simply stating that we must have sex the way God intended it (no barriers) makes sense. Once the “open to life,” “ordered toward procreation,” etc.** get mixed up with intentionally having sex when one is infertile,** you’ve lost me, because the logic becomes self-contradictory.

Sorry, I only just noticed this! The Church does not teach that it is wrong to intentionally have sex while infertile!!! If I am reading your post corectly and this is your understanding on this subject can you please point me to what you read which gave you this impression?

 

[truthseeker32]

For anyone who thinks artificial contraception and NFP are identical, I recommend reading Anscombe, who opposed artifical contraception, but not NFP. The link below is even from an Orthodox site: orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.php

Here, however, people still feel intensely confused, because the intention where oral contraceptives are taken seems to be just the same as when intercourse is deliberately restricted to infertile periods. In one way this is true, and its truth is actually pointed out by Humanae Vitae, in a passage I will quote in a moment. But in another way it’s not true.

The reason why people are confused about intention, and why they sometimes think there is no difference between contraceptive intercourse and the use of infertile times to avoid conception, is this: They don’t notice the difference between “intention” when it means the intentionalness of the thing you’re doing - that you’re doing this on purpose - and when it means a further or accompanying intention with which you do the thing. For example, I make a table: that’s an intentional action because I am doing just that on purpose. I have the further intention of, say, earning my living, doing my job by making the table. Contraceptive intercourse and intercourse using infertile times may be alike in respect of further intention, and these further intentions may be good, justified, excellent. This the Pope has noted. He sketched such a situation and said: “It cannot be denied that in both cases the married couple, for acceptable reasons,” (for that’s how he imagined the case) “are perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and mean to secure that none will be born.” This is a comment on the two things: contraceptive intercourse on the one hand and intercourse using infertile times on the other, for the sake of the limitation of the family.

**But contraceptive intercourse is faulted, not on account of this further intention, but because of the kind of intentional action you are doing. The action is not left by you as the kind of act by which life is transmitted, but is purposely rendered infertile, and so changed to another sort of act altogether. **

In considering an action, we need always to judge several things about ourselves. First: is the sort of act we contemplate doing something that it’s all right to do? Second: are our further or surrounding intentions all right? Third: is the spirit in which we do it all right? Contraceptive intercourse fails on the first count; and to intend such an act is not to intend a marriage act at all, whether or no we’re married. An act of ordinary intercourse in marriage at an infertile time, though, is a perfectly ordinary act of married intercourse, and it will be bad, if it is bad, only on the second or third counts.

It may help you to see that the intentional act itself counts, as well as the further or accompanying intentions, if you think of an obvious example like forging a cheque to steal from somebody in order to get funds for a good purpose. The intentional action, presenting a cheque we’ve forged, is on the face of it a dishonest action, not be vindicated by the good further intention.

 

[ValPal]

For anyone who thinks artificial contraception and NFP are identical,

They are not identical simply because contraception implies artificial means, whereas NFP doesn’t. However, when NFP is utilized to avoid procreation, in particular having sex during the infertile period, both are identical in that they are actively and intentionally being utilized to avoid procreation.

 

[ValPal]

Well, thats what I mean, those terms are very confusing. I dislike them precisely for that reason. The reason it seems contradictory is because many people either don’t understand the Church’s teaching themselves or use ambiguous terms and phrases such as “open to life” which really just end up making people, like youself confused about it all. Don’t get caught up in all that.

I don’t get caught up in it until it is discussed. The Church is very, very specific regarding verbiage, and I read it in that context. When it comes to issues like this and I try to read it in the same manner as, say, the Catechism, I’m utterly flummoxed. When even Catholics can’t understand it, it’s not a good thing.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t get caught up in it until it is discussed. The Church is very, very specific regarding verbiage, and I read it in that context. When it comes to issues like this and I try to read it in the same manner as, say, the Catechism, I’m utterly flummoxed. When even Catholics can’t understand it, it’s not a good thing.

Can you please point me to the official teachings which use this language which confuse you?