Is NFP really open to procreation?

[Rau]

I’ve been reading a number of threads on this site discussing, for want of a better expression, “acceptable sex”. So, among other things, these dicussed masturbation, oral sex, contraception etc. and generally found these fell foul of the (Catholic) requirement that sexual relations be unitive and procreative (or at least “open to the possibility of life creation”).

Now of course natural forms of contraception have been declared acceptable to the church - eg. the Rhythm Method (of many years ago), or the more recent form known as “Fertility Awareness” (which I think is also what is called Catholic NFP).

I am struggling to see the logic that concludes one form of contraception is OK, while another is not. The intent of either is identical. The problem is even more troublesome when one observes that a highly effective method (Fertility Awareness/NFP) is OK, and a less effective method (eg. male condom) is not acceptable. See effectiveness data here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Comparison_table

Neither of the above methods makes conception impossible, and is hence open to life. Arguably, the condom is “more open”, as its effectiveness is a lot less.

Can someone elaborate on what is the key factor which causes NFP to be OK, and others not?

 

[ahs]

The difference is this:

NFP - I am willing to abstain from sex in order to avoid children at this time. But during the infertile times, I will enjoy the Marital embrace with my spouse. When I DO enjoy that embrace, it will be completed naturally, just the way God designed it (ordered, per se, toward procreation…even if procreation is not likely).

Contraception - I am NOT willing to abstiain in order to avoid children at this time, and instead will work to remove the procreative aspect of the sexual act, thereby thwarting by my own power what only God should have power over…since it is HE, not man, who designed the conjugal union.

Logically, waiting to perform an act during the naturally infertile period is NOT the same as purposefully removing the procreative nature from an act. If you assert that these are logically the same, please explain how one can remove, by his own power, the procreative aspect of an act that 1) is not taking place (when the couple abstains) or 2) an act that is naturally infertile due to God’s natural design.

 

[ahs]

Something else to consider is that NFP is information, not an act. And if you would suggest that the more highly effective method of avoiding conception would logically be less “okay”, then what would you say of abstinence, which is the MOST effective means?

 

[JRKH]

I would suggest that the difference lies in the idea of “contra”…that is to act against as differentiated from acting to avoid.
NFP acts to avoid conception but does not act to impede it.
ABC acts against conception.

Granted the intent to avoid pregnancy is present in both cases, but wishing to avoid pregnancy is not in itself a sin. The problem lies in that the use of a condom the full and proper goal of the marital act is impeded by preventing the seed from being properly deposited in it’s correct location thus making the act improperly ordered.

I won’t say that the above is a “textbook” definition, but it is how I understand the difference.

Peace
James

 

[Spider42]

Can someone elaborate on what is the key factor which causes NFP to be OK, and others not?

This can be a confusing area because Church understanding has shifted. For example, St. Augustine criticized gnostic Christian sects for using menstrual timing methods. But family structures shifted and Catholic understanding expanded. Augustine recommended monogamy (the Roman practice), but with the Christian concepts of chastity.

This lead to shifts in family structure and our understanding of monogamy as a partnership. It’s a thread through centuries of Church history, but really begins to appear clearly in 17th and 18th century theological thought and papal writings. While the 4th century Church fathers leaned towards sex for procreation only, the living Magisterium realized that marital sex actually serves two purposes.

Procreation and unity. Unity is still secondary, but very high (see Casti Connubii). What Humanae Vitae explains is that there are licit reasons for married Catholics to avoid or space out children. But these needs should not be at the cost of the unity purpose, or expression of love in the sacrament of marriage.

What makes natural family planning different is a few things. First, the sex act itself is unaltered, there are no additions (condom, IUD, spermicidal gel, etc.) and no reductions (coitus interruptus, etc.)

Second, it requires knowledge alone.

Third, it does require some discipline and sacrifice. With most forms of modern birth control, the procreation purpose of sex can simply be ignored. Sex almost at will, mostly without obvious consequence. It might sound like the Church wants people to ‘suffer’ by using the more restrictive NFP methods. But I do not think that is accurate. The Church wants married couples who are avoiding procreation for licit reasons to be aware and conscious of their decision. Unity is still shared, but there are times of abstinence to reflect on wether decisions about procreation are still licit and appropriate.

I’m sorry if I’m not explaining this well. There are some excellent books, both on the history, and current teaching and theology, that I could recommend.

 

[bzkoss236]

I’d like to also add that NFP can be used for people who want to get pregnant who usually have trouble. NFP truly is family planning, because you can choose to avoid (when acceptable) or you can choose to conceive while using it (as it is a method, not an act per say). Contraception doesn’t do that. Contraception’s only use (aside from some medical benefits if prescribed as such) is to avoid conceiving. When a person who uses contraception wants to have a child, and they decide to stop using contraception to conceive, there’s no guarantee that the next number of times they will get pregnant. Using NFP to get pregnant, your chances of conceiving are increased because you are planning when the best time to act would be.

 

[davidv]

I’ve been reading a number of threads on this site discussing, for want of a better expression, “acceptable sex”. So, among other things, these dicussed masturbation, oral sex, contraception etc. and generally found these fell foul of the (Catholic) requirement that sexual relations be unitive and procreative (or at least “open to the possibility of life creation”).

Now of course natural forms of contraception have been declared acceptable to the church - eg. the Rhythm Method (of many years ago), or the more recent form known as “Fertility Awareness” (which I think is also what is called Catholic NFP).

I am struggling to see the logic that concludes one form of contraception is OK, while another is not. The intent of either is identical. The problem is even more troublesome when one observes that a highly effective method (Fertility Awareness/NFP) is OK, and a less effective method (eg. male condom) is not acceptable. See effectiveness data here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Comparison_table

Neither of the above methods makes conception impossible, and is hence open to life. Arguably, the condom is “more open”, as its effectiveness is a lot less.

Can someone elaborate on what is the key factor which causes NFP to be OK, and others not?

To be precise, the rhythm method and NFP are not contraception. The can be licit birth regulation methods. Why, because in these cases, sexual intercourse is not altered to be infertile by physical or chemical means.

 

[down_under]

I’d like to also add that NFP can be used for people who want to get pregnant who usually have trouble. NFP truly is family planning, because you can choose to avoid (when acceptable) or you can choose to conceive while using it (as it is a method, not an act per say). Contraception doesn’t do that. Contraception’s only use (aside from some medical benefits if prescribed as such) is to avoid conceiving. When a person who uses contraception wants to have a child, and they decide to stop using contraception to conceive, there’s no guarantee that the next number of times they will get pregnant. Using NFP to get pregnant, your chances of conceiving are increased because you are planning when the best time to act would be.

This is a good point I have 3 kids between with my wife and she had one before. We had each kid exactly when we wanted to. There is 2 years between each. we only use NFP.

The other point is more practical. Church definitions aside (which are good no question), its the difference between enjoying time with the other person (unity), and use of the other person. If I don’t have to worry about when she can and cannot conceive then I can have sex whenever I want. It takes the emphasis off her as a person and puts it on my desire to have her whenever I want. She becomes used like a hammer. Which lends to putting it down on the shelf when you don’t need it. People should not be thought of in terms of your gratification only.

Besides when you sort of get 1 week out of every two. It makes it special. And well she is worth waiting for.

The alternatives are the pill which is a carcinogen according to the world health organization. Its under E for estrogen right after A for asbestos but before F for formaldehyde. I am a pharmacist in my masters program I should know. Condoms have such a high failure rate that they are simply unreliable. They fall off they break. we are not even considering how bad they are at protecting disease because me and my wife have no other partners. NFP is open to life and well its the best option.

 

[Rau]

Thanks for these responses everyone. I now follow the logic. My erroneous prior understanding was that the problem with “contracepted-sex” was that it was sex without prospect of conception. However, “NFP-timed” sex can be that too.

The central issue thus seems to be that the Church has prescribed the form that sex must take - viz, it must finish inside the woman and must not otherwise be interfered with (eg. by way of the pill etc.). On the other hand, the Church has no objection to couples limiting their sexual encounters to times when the woman is (naturally) not fertile. *

Question then is - **why **does the Church place the above requirements on the sex act, given it is **not *about providing an opporunity for conception (since that chance may already be eliminated in other circumstances, eg. due to NFP, or post-menopause sex).

 

[Spider42]

Question then is - **why **does the Church place the above requirements on the sex act, given it is **not **about providing an opporunity for conception (since that chance may already be eliminated in other circumstances, eg. due to NFP, or post-menopause sex).

The simple answer is that anything else alters it. Both in terms of unity and procreation, it is a wonderful gift from God, so we use it as it was given to us, not in ways we can bend to our own convenience.

 

[down_under]

. *

Question then is - **why ***does the Church place the above requirements on the sex act, given it is **not **about providing an opporunity for conception (since that chance may already be eliminated in other circumstances, eg. due to NFP, or post-menopause sex).

refer to my earlier post as to your second question however the global population would probably be sustainable if no used contraception. if Catholics were not constrained by money in there family sizes(particularly in western society) we would probably not be in a global financial crisis. cheers.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for these responses everyone. I now follow the logic. My erroneous prior understanding was that the problem with “contracepted-sex” was that it was sex without prospect of conception. However, “NFP-timed” sex can be that too.

Happy to be of help.

The central issue thus seems to be that the Church has prescribed the form that sex must take - viz, it must finish inside the woman and must not otherwise be interfered with (eg. by way of the pill etc.). On the other hand, the Church has no objection to couples limiting their sexual encounters to times when the woman is (naturally) not fertile.

It would be more accurate to say that the Church has described the proper form of sex - as designed by the Creator - it is the Creator who “prescribed” the form. It is the Creator who designed it.

Question then is - **why **does the Church place the above requirements on the sex act, given it is **not **about providing an opporunity for conception (since that chance may already be eliminated in other circumstances, eg. due to NFP, or post-menopause sex).

Because this is the manner in which God designed our bodies to work. The Church does no more than to say that we should use these functions in the manner that God designed them. At the root it is really no more complicated than that.

Peace
James

 

[Rau]

Down Under - I did re-read your earlier post (to look for an answer to “why did the Church prescribe that the sex act must be…”), but I don’t really see an answer there, but rather a personal “after the fact” rationalisation or interpretation.

I guess the ultimate answer to this quesion lies in the relevant moral theology documents, eg. HUMANAE VITAE. Is this the best, and dare I say, “to the point” reference to read to seek an answer?

 

[Rau]

James - I struggle with your response as I think it leans to the circular. To choose the word “describe” instead of “prescribe” requires one to already accept the very matter that is in discussion/debate. Hence, the answer is not arrived at, but deemed already self-evident!

Now, I agree the “standard mechanics” (for want of a better term) of sexual intercourse is as it is, but gosh, we are by nature innovative creatures, and I don’t know from where comes the embargo on applying that innovation in the sexual process. [We can’t argue that “non-standard” processes are not acceptable beacuase they are not “standard”! ]

I suppose the most obvious “candidate” for innovation might be in overcoming a defect of the body which prevents pregnancy through “standard mechanics” alone. Does God intend we accept (ie. just put up with) the defects that we may be born with or subsequently acquire? Clearly not (at least in general). Yet sex is different?

 

[down_under]

Down Under - I did re-read your earlier post (to look for an answer to “why did the Church prescribe that the sex act must be…”), but I don’t really see an answer there, but rather a personal “after the fact” rationalisation or interpretation.

I guess the ultimate answer to this quesion lies in the relevant moral theology documents, eg. HUMANAE VITAE. Is this the best, and dare I say, “to the point” reference to read to seek an answer?

the why involves taking a person from being a person to being a use. from loving the other to loving ourselves through the other. contraception takes no account for the natural state of the other. rather bends the other to our use. In short because they are people not tools. and yes this is spelled out in humanae vitae (on human life)

 

[JRKH]

James - I struggle with your response as I think it leans to the circular. To choose the word “describe” instead of “prescribe” requires one to already accept the very matter that is in discussion/debate. Hence, the answer is not arrived at, but deemed already self-evident!

Agreed - but since you came to a Catholic board to ask Catholics about a Catholic teaching/understanding, I wished to clarify for you the Catholic outlook.
That outlook says that the Church teaches what God determines. Therefore the Church does not “prescribe” so but as she “describes”.

Now, I agree the “standard mechanics” (for want of a better term) of sexual intercourse is as it is, but gosh, we are by nature innovative creatures, and I don’t know from where comes the embargo on applying that innovation in the sexual process. [We can’t argue that “non-standard” processes are not acceptable because they are not “standard”! ]

I suppose the most obvious “candidate” for innovation might be in overcoming a defect of the body which prevents pregnancy through “standard mechanics” alone. Does God intend we accept (ie. just put up with) the defects that we may be born with or subsequently acquire? Clearly not (at least in general). Yet sex is different?

I would suggest that you read the Church’s own document on the matter as there really isn’t a quick and easy way to explain it.
The document is called “Humane Vitae”. Even if it does not convince you, it should give you some understanding of the great thought that has gone into the matter and the principles upon which it rests.

Peace
James

 

[Rau]

James - In regard to your last suggestion, I will indeed read HV as I think that is where the “reasoning” that leads to current teaching is to be found.

To your first point, I do (now) understand the Church outlook thanks to your (and other) contributions here. But as I’ve said, I’m looking to go back a step or two and ask - how did the Church come to this outlook? Or in terms of your comments - how did the Church reason / determine that God intends only a single process for sexual intercourse. The answer to this too may be found in HV.

Just a thought in passing…some aspects of God’s requirements of us have been clear and unambiguous for many centuries eg. “Thou shalt not steal”. Others, such as what we’re now discussing, have a very short history - having only been discerned in relatively recent times (and of course noone could be culpable for breeches prior to discenment!) That the moral compass moves with time just seems odd, but perhaps not inconsistent with “whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven”, etc etc.

 

[ahs]

James - In regard to your last suggestion, I will indeed read HV as I think that is where the “reasoning” that leads to current teaching is to be found.

Also read *Casti connubii *and *Familiaris consortio *and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1643-1654 and 2331-2400. Very well worth the time to read these, as they will make clearer and clearer the Catholic teachings that relate to the Marital union.

To your first point, I do (now) understand the Church outlook thanks to your (and other) contributions here. But as I’ve said, I’m looking to go back a step or two and ask - how did the Church come to this outlook? Or in terms of your comments - how did the Church reason / determine that God intends only a single process for sexual intercourse. The answer to this too may be found in HV.

It will be answered in HV + the other refereces (and others as well, but those listed should give you the big picture).

Just a thought in passing…some aspects of God’s requirements of us have been clear and unambiguous for many centuries eg. “Thou shalt not steal”. Others, such as what we’re now discussing, have a very short history - having only been discerned in relatively recent times (and of course noone could be culpable for breeches prior to discenment!) That the moral compass moves with time just seems odd, but perhaps not inconsistent with “whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven”, etc etc.

Actually, what we are currently discussing goes back to the very first beginnings…“male and female He created them…” and “…in [God’s] likeness and image…” When you understand what it means to be both created in His Image and likeness and recognize that He specifically made “wo-man” as the specific and only suitable partner for “man”, the teachings regarding sexuality and Marriage (including contraception and natural cycles) all becomes pretty clear. What we are discussing now predates that 10 Commandments, in so far as we know them to have been given to us in “time”, as it were.

If you have the time to dedicate to it and enjoy reading (and enjoy philosophy), here John Paul II’s “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body” will explain everything you ever wanted to know on the topic. It is truly a wonderful and deep exploration of who we are, and what that means to be who we are.

 

[JRKH]

James - In regard to your last suggestion, I will indeed read HV as I think that is where the “reasoning” that leads to current teaching is to be found.

To your first point, I do (now) understand the Church outlook thanks to your (and other) contributions here. But as I’ve said, I’m looking to go back a step or two and ask - how did the Church come to this outlook? Or in terms of your comments - how did the Church reason / determine that God intends only a single process for sexual intercourse. The answer to this too may be found in HV.

Just a thought in passing…some aspects of God’s requirements of us have been clear and unambiguous for many centuries eg. “Thou shalt not steal”. Others, such as what we’re now discussing, have a very short history - having only been discerned in relatively recent times (and of course noone could be culpable for breeches prior to discenment!) That the moral compass moves with time just seems odd, but perhaps not inconsistent with “whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven”, etc etc.

ahs has already given a wonderful reply so I just wish to address the idea of the moral compass moving…
Actually - the more deeply you get into Church teaching think that the more consistency you will find. Where “movement” might be perceived would be in the realm of “new questions” - which is the fundamental reason for HV being written, to address new questions being brought up due to new discoveries and options.

Peace
James

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Just a thought in passing…some aspects of God’s requirements of us have been clear and unambiguous for many centuries eg. “Thou shalt not steal”. Others, such as what we’re now discussing, have a very short history - having only been discerned in relatively recent times (and of course noone could be culpable for breeches prior to discenment!) That the moral compass moves with time just seems odd, but perhaps not inconsistent with “whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven”, etc etc.

What do you think has a short history? Do you mean NFP has a short history or contraception or what?

The story of Onan is found in the Old Testament. See Genesis 38. The Bible makes it very clear: Onan did wrong when he spilled his seed.

You mentioned both condoms and NFP in your op. Condoms are a variation on “seed spilling” that Onan did. NFP (to avoid pregnancy) involves abstainence for a period of time, not “spilling seed.” Abstinence to prevent pregnancy has also been around for a long time. There is-- *and always has been–*a huge moral difference between abstinence and contraceptive acts.