Is NFP "Open to life"?

[thewanderer]

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.

Contraception does not necessarily imply artificial means as often understood today. If someone were to find a herb supplement which causes increased infertility and were to use it to avoid conception that would be just as immoral as using a condom or the pill. The common use of the word ‘natural’ is not what the Church means by natural in this case. The reason NFP is allowed is because you aren’t doing anything to mess with your fertility. You aren’t trying to make something which is already ordered correctly become disordered. You are simply gaining knowledge and using that knowledge to help you make more informed decisions. That is** all **that NFP is. The reason NFP is clearly ok is because there is nothing wrong with either knowledge, abstinance, or intent to avoid children with sufficient reason. However there is something wrong with taking a human function which is already working correctly and then wrecking it just for the sake of making sure that it won’t work the way it is supposed to. That is what pretty much any other form of birth control does, whether via natural supplements or methods (pull-out can be considered natural according to the common definition) or artificial man-made such as the condom or the pill. This is what the Church teaches about it, this is the reason why NFP is fine but ABC is not. It has nothing to do with intention or being ‘natural’.

 

[truthseeker32]

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.

Did you read the link I posted? Anscombe tackles that very point.

 

[ahs]

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.

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

Can you explain how:

1. …having sex in the infertile period, in teh natural manner, frustrates the outcome of the marital act? In other words, explain how the procreative power of an act is frustrated within an act that takes place within a time where there is no procreative power to frustrate (because it is happening in a naturally infertile period)?
2. …avoiding sex frustrates a marital act…that isn’t even taking place…?

Don’t get hung up on intent. There is no sin for a couple to intent to not get pregnant. The sin rests in the thwarting of the procreative or unitive natures of the conjugal act. The sin is in what one does to the marital act…There is no sin in a couple not wanting to conceive at any given time (provided just reasons, etc…) as long as they don’t DO anything that thwarts either aspect.

I’m sure we agree that abstinence does not thwart anything. So, can you explain how having sex in an infertile period, while still completing the act in the natural manner, thwarts either aspect?

 

[ahs]

Here’s a pretty good explanation from Pope Paul VI in Humanse Vitae:

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, **these two cases are completely different. **In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. (HV 16)

And then later Pope John Paul II reclarifies for us in Familiaris Consortio:

[After speaking of the evil of contraception]…When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as “ministers” of God’s plan and they “benefit from” their sexuality according to the original **dynamism of “total” selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.(**90)
In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. **In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never “used” as an “object” **that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person. (FC 32)

 

[BellsMom]

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 thought that a sexless marriage was not a sacramental marriage in the eyes of the church. Otherwise, why would the church say a permanently impotent man can’t marry?

 

[jilly4ski]

Yes let’s use specific and precise terminology. The Church uses the phrase periodic continence, not NFP (NFP is merely a tool to accomplish periodic continence).

The norm for married couples is for them to engage in the marital when they so choose. Periodic continence means they limit this behavior during certain times. Or they could use complete continence. With contraception, anything from the pill to withdrawal, instead of limiting the behavior that causes pregnancy the couple disorders the marital act so the can continue their behavior. That is the difference in means.

 

[jilly4ski]

I thought that a sexless marriage was not a sacramental marriage in the eyes of the church. Otherwise, why would the church say a permanently impotent man can’t marry?

This is not correct. A couple can enter a marriage with the intent to not consummate. under the direction of a spiritual director. Such marriage is valid and sacramental, but because it has not been consummated can be dissolved. But the couple must be capable of consummating, if one spouse no longer wishes to live in continence then they must consummate the relationship. If a couple is incapable of engaging in the marital act then the marriage is not valid. (There is a difference between capable and choosing not to). There is also the issue, that once you say the vows anything that happens after does not factor into the validity or sacramental nature of the marriage. So if you get married consummate the marriage and then develop a condition that does not allow you to engage in the marital act the marriage is still valid and sacramental.

This is off topic

Read: 1 Cor 7:5

 

[Observer3]

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?

Yes, absolutely. I believe most things in life are relative, and not black and white. Not everyone can eat peanuts or soy or the same diet. Not everyone can exercise the same way. Not everyone can work the same schedule. And not everyone should follow NFP.

 

[jilly4ski]

Yes, absolutely. I believe most things in life are relative, and not black and white. Not everyone can eat peanuts or soy or the same diet. Not everyone can exercise the same way. Not everyone can work the same schedule. And not everyone should follow NFP.

What does this even mean? Catholics don’t practice periodic or complete continence because it is fun, we do so, if we cannot have another baby at that time, because it is right. But in a way you are right, NFP is not for everyone, some people just let the babies come as they will. (I for example do chart for NFP but we have yet to use it to avoid, except when it didn’t matter, when I was infertile after childbirth. check out the ages of my children in my sig below)

 

[ValPal]

Did you read the link I posted? Anscombe tackles that very point.

Yes.

But all the explanations in the world do not make that which is logically inconsistent, logically consistent.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes.

But all the explanations in the world do not make that which is logically inconsistent, logically consistent.

Can you please present the official teachings which you believe are logically inconsistant?

ETA: It is important to note that just because the opinions and beliefs of individual Catholics are illogical and inconsistant it does not mean that the Church’s opinion and reasoning is illogical or inconsistant. So if you are talking about un-official teachings being logically inconsistant than I hope you will be honest enough to acknowledge that it is not the Church’s teaching which you find illogical, but certain people’s understanding of it.

 

[ValPal]

Can you please present the official teachings which you believe are logically inconsistant?

I could provide dozens, but it is off topic. FWIW, they are all issues based in Tradition.

 

[jilly4ski]

I could provide dozens, but it is off topic. FWIW, they are all issues based in Tradition.

Could you provide official teaching in this area which you think are inconsistent?

 

[thewanderer]

I could provide dozens, but it is off topic. FWIW, they are all issues based in Tradition.

Do you mean Tradition or tradition? There is a huge difference. One is binding official teaching and the other is not.

btw, this information is not at all off-topic, it pertains directly to the difficulty people have in understanding Church teaching on NFP, which difficulty is the reason for this thread being started in the first place.

 

[LaSainte]

As someone who has struggled openly with this issue on this very forum and come to terms with being obedient to Church teaching on the matter, let me chime in

First, it is very hard to force yourself to do something you don’t want to do, to follow a rule you don’t want to follow. We all have our pet issues with certain teachings and we look for loopholes around them. I guess it’s human nature. This is mine. I finally just decided to give up and be obedient, and I will say that once I did this, my thinking has slowly but surely altered.

I used to be of the opinion that there was no difference in the intent between NFP and ABC, that both were equally closed to life. I still believe that regarding the immediate act, this is true. Whether you are using a condom or abstaining from sex, the message to God is the same: we don’t want kids right now.

HOWEVER, I will say that speaking in terms of the TOTALITY of our thinking, we are definitely more “open to life” with NFP than ABC. For example, we are currently using the Marquette method to avoid. We have 2 sons, finances are tight, they are pretty wild, and we are in our mid-30s. Bottom line: we don’t really see ourselves having any more children (until I see a little girl in a princess dress at the mall, but that’s just me!). Even though we don’t envision ourselves having more kids, when we do things like go house shopping, we do so with the mindset that it is POSSIBLE that we will have a surprise someday, so we look at houses that are a bit on the larger side. When I forget to test my fertility, if we decide to just “go for it”, my husband will joke “So what should we name her?”. If we were practicing ABC, or I should say WHEN we were practicing ABC, these thoughts weren’t even on our radar, even though the possibility of a failure of the ABC was certainly there.

With ABC, you have this illusion of control. With NFP, your thinking shifts ever so slightly to allow for the possibility that your plans may not be THE PLAN, and you sort of allow for that in a general sense, even though you may be trying to avoid conception at the time.

The sense of security you get with ABC is gone, but in a way, it is replaced by another sense of security brought about by surrendering to God’s will a little bit more.

That being said, I really, REALLY hope I don’t get pregnant

 

[Ignatius]

In some conversations I’ve had with other Catholics, they have argued that NFP is open to life, while contraception is not.

Nothing is done in NFP to block conception i.e. there is no CONTRA ception.
NFP usess the what God has established to provide for prudential family planning.

 

[fix]

it is simply imprecise language. NFP is simply information. It can be used to decide whether or not to engage in the marital act depending upon whether one is attempting to avoid/space or achieve pregnancy.

It is the act of intercourse itself that is either properly ordered or disordered.

Contraception disorders intercourse.

Abstaining from intercourse is not a disordered action, and neither is a completed act of intercourse. Therefore, the person acting on NFP information never engages in a disordered at of intercourse.

Well done. People should read HV as it states it all very clearly.

 

[MilesVitae]

Nothing is done in NFP to block conception i.e. there is no CONTRA ception.

Right, and in that sense, I completely agree that contraception is “closed to life” in a way that NFP is not.

The sense I am getting is that the argument I mentioned in the first post is bad rhetoric, and that many agree with me on that point - so, I’m pretty sure now that I’m not misrepresentating Catholic teaching by rejecting that argument. Thank you to all those who commented on my question.

 

[Rico_S]

This is not correct. A couple can enter a marriage with the intent to not consummate. under the direction of a spiritual director. Such marriage is valid and sacramental, but because it has not been consummated can be dissolved.

Read: 1 Cor 7:5

How can this be in light of the fact the church teaches that the primary end of marriage (one of) is the procreation and rearing of offspring?

 

[jilly4ski]

How can this be in light of the fact the church teaches that the primary end of marriage (one of) is the procreation and rearing of offspring?

Think Mary and Joseph. But again this is very rare, and if one spouse wants to consummate then they must.