Is NFP really open to procreation?

[twoangels]

Fertility Awareness is just awareness. Its knowing what is going on in the woman’s body. That knowledge does not prevent conception. The only thing that prevents conception is abstinence. As such, pregnancy is prevented through abstinence. The act is not changed. Neither is the woman or man’s fertility destroy or surpressed in some manner.

With condoms, pregnancy is prevented by putting a barrier up. The couple still engages in the act. They modify the act so that the procreative end of sex can be disrupted.

 

[godisgood77]

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread…I have a question and am a little embarrassed to ask…but here goes.

I’ve read Humanae Vitae, understand it themes and principles and believe them true. I’ve studied the Theology of the Body, both in private and at a Christopher West seminar and I’ve listened to many audio teachings on the subject.

I do have one nuance that I haven’t been able to understand logically. NFP targets those times where pregnancy is not possible or, maybe more accurately, where the chance of pregnancy is reduced. Essentially, the deposit is being made to a place where life can not occur. The intention is to avoid pregnancy.

I fail to see a difference between this method of birth control and coitus interrupts where the intention is to avoid pregnancy, the chance of pregnancy is reduced and the deposit is made to a place where life can not occur.

Can someone help me to understand where the difference lies?

 

[ahs]

NFP targets those times where pregnancy is not possible or, maybe more accurately, where the chance of pregnancy is reduced.

Not really. NFP is information that will more accurately tell a couple whether the wife is in a fertile phase or not.

Essentially, the deposit is being made to a place where life can not occur. The intention is to avoid pregnancy.

Actually, the deposit is made precisely where life CAN occur…just in a time natural infertility. The “intention” to avoid pregnancy is not so much the issue, as is how the couple goes about avoiding it. They can choose to abstain from sex in the fertile time, or they can contracept an act.

I fail to see a difference between this method of birth control and coitus interrupts where the intention is to avoid pregnancy, the chance of pregnancy is reduced and the deposit is made to a place where life can -]not/-] occur, [but during a period of natural infertility.].

Can someone help me to understand where the difference lies?

(edits in red added by me)

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 thinkt 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.**

 

[godisgood77]

Not really. NFP is information that will more accurately tell a couple whether the wife is in a fertile phase or not.

Actually, the deposit is made precisely where life CAN occur…just in a time natural infertility. The “intention” to avoid pregnancy is not so much the issue, as is how the couple goes about avoiding it. They can choose to abstain from sex in the fertile time, or they can contracept an act.

(edits in red added by me)

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 thinkt 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.**

Yes, God designed the conjugal union. He also gave us intellects. In NFP, we choose to have sex when the possibility of life is diminished by using the the power that God gave us in our intellect. It is perfectly natural for us to use our intellect to diminish the chance of conception using coitus interrupts. How would it be unnatural? The intention is the same…

I guess I will always struggle with this… thanks for the responses brothers and sisters. I appreciate it.

 

[ahs]

Yes, God designed the conjugal union. He also gave us intellects. In NFP, we choose to have sex when the possibility of life is diminished by using the the power that God gave us in our intellect. It is perfectly natural for us to use our intellect to diminish the chance of conception using coitus interrupts. How would it be unnatural? The intention is the same…

I guess I will always struggle with this… thanks for the responses brothers and sisters. I appreciate it.

The “intention” to avoid pregnancy is not so much the issue, as is how the couple goes about avoiding it. They can choose to abstain from sex in the fertile time, or they can contracept an act. Coitus interruptus is the intentional** removal of the procreative nature** of an act that is taking place. Natural birth regulation (NFP/NBR) does not remove a procreative nature from an act.

To give you a better idea of what I am saying, and this in is light of the fact that you have read and studied the Church teaching…so you have a decent understanding of what is required, answer this:

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?

---

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.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes, God designed the conjugal union. He also gave us intellects. In NFP, we choose to have sex when the possibility of life is diminished by using the the power that God gave us in our intellect. It is perfectly natural for us to use our intellect to diminish the chance of conception using coitus interrupts. How would it be unnatural? The intention is the same…

I guess I will always struggle with this… thanks for the responses brothers and sisters. I appreciate it.

I appreciate that you are struggling with this–because that means you’re making an effort to understand rather than just dismissing what the Church teaches.
There are numerous difference between NFP and “coitus intruptus”. For one, the Church approves of NFP when there’s a “just” reason for avoiding pregnancy, while the Church (and the Bible–see the story of Onan) condemns the other. But I suppose that doesn’t exactly make it clear to you* why* the Church condemns one and allows the other, so I hope people here can help you make sense out of this.

While you say coitus interuptus is not “unnatural”, it’s not exactly the natural act by which women typically get pregnant either. When a couple uses NFP to avoid pregnancy, they avoid engaging in sex during her fertile time. There’s a big difference between avoiding sex and having it with a slight variation from it’s original design. Oh, and I will also mention here that when using NFP, Catholic couples shouldn’t be doing the “other” stuff to get off either. (I’m trying to put that delicately.) Perhaps that’s part of your confusion. The “other” stuff is also off limits too, (either together or alone.) So, correct use of NFP avoids the marriage act and all the variations of it. Since it’s morally acceptable for a couple to decide not to have sex, it’s acceptable for them to not have sex during the woman’s fertile time.

I’ll also add…moral use of NFP by a Catholic requires the couple to prayerfully discern if they have good (just) reasons for not bringing more children into the world. (The Church hasn’t defined what those reasons are.) Because NFP requires sacrifice and evaluation, the correct use of NFP may lead couples to be more willing to accept more children from God than couples using other methods to avoid pregnancy. There are varying degrees of how careful couples will be with NFP and how strictly they will follow the guidelines, often relating directly to how serious their reasons are for avoiding pregnancy. If another pregnancy poses a serious health risk to the woman, they may be much more likely to strictly follow guidelines and have longer periods of abstainance so as to not take any chances. But, if they were already discussing the possibility of having another child but not yet completely decided on the matter, they may not be quite as strict.

 

[godisgood77]

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.

Didn’t God create it to be be used in numerous ways? For me the question comes down to how did we determine the definition of how God designed the marital embrace? When we say “use it as it was given to us”, how was the definition of “as it was given to us” determined and based on what?

 

[ahs]

Didn’t God create it to be be used in numerous ways? For me the question comes down to how did we determine the definition of how God designed the marital embrace? When we say “use it as it was given to us”, how was the definition of “as it was given to us” determined and based on what?

Are you talking about sex? Yes, it has many benefits to a married couple…primarily being ordered to procreation and unification of the spouses. The meaning of sex is rooted in the Natural Moral Law…I guess that’s the best place to say where we “determine the definition of the marital embrace”.

 

[godisgood77]

Are you talking about sex? Yes, it has many benefits to a married couple…primarily being ordered to procreation and unification of the spouses. The meaning of sex is rooted in the Natural Moral Law…I guess that’s the best place to say where we “determine the definition of the marital embrace”.

Ok…keep going… Where did the Natural Moral Law come from?

 

[ahs]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6T.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6U.HTM

 

[godisgood77]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6T.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6U.HTM

Thank-you for the links…I didn’t see anything relating to sex either however. Not trying to be obstinate…

 

[ahs]

Thank-you for the links…I didn’t see anything relating to sex either however. Not trying to be obstinate…

Right. You asked where we get our understading of the nature of sex (that it is procreative and unitive in nature). I said from the Natural Moral Law. You asked where we get the Natural Moral Law, and I gave you those links that tell you where we get the Natural Moral Law.

 

[ahs]

So, let’s revisit our previous posts and see whether we need to discuss Natural Moral Law or not (whether it will be helpful to you or if it’s just a sideline to the true topic).

Yes, God designed the conjugal union. He also gave us intellects. **In NFP, we choose to have sex when the possibility of life is diminished **by using the the power that God gave us in our intellect. It is perfectly natural for us to use our intellect to diminish the chance of conception using coitus interrupts. How would it be unnatural? **The intention is the same… **

I guess I will always struggle with this… thanks for the responses brothers and sisters. I appreciate it.

While the intention is the same, it is NOT the use of intellect that justifies an act.

With Coitus interruptus a couple seeks to remove the procreative nature from an act that is taking place.

With NFP, a couple does NOT seek to remove the procreative nature from an act that is taking place.

To help you see this more clearly, let’s answer a couple questions:

1. How does a couple remove the procreative nature of an act this IS taking place? ANS: With coitus interruptus (or other contracetive means).
2. How does a couple remove the procreative nature of an act that IS NOT taking place (when the couple abstains)? ANS: They can’t…because they are not engaging in an act.
3. How does a couple remove the procreative nature of an act that is naturally infertile due to God’s natural design, IF they engage in it the natural way (finishing with intra-vaginal ejaculation)? ANS: They can’t.

 

[Bookcat]

Is NFP really open to procreation?

Yes.

 

[ahs]

EDIT to my last post

for my question #3: Not that they “can’t” (because they could by using coitus interruptus), but that they “don’t” because they finish teh act in the natural way.

Hope that doesn’t confuse.

 

[godisgood77]

I think discussing this question in more detail would help…

3) How does a couple remove the procreative nature of an act that is naturally infertile due to God’s natural design, IF they engage in it the natural way (finishing with intra-vaginal ejaculation)? ANS: They can’t.

Here is an objective truth… one can not remove the procreative nature from an act that is infertile… it’s impossible. Procreative means capable of reproducing; generative. I think this question is at the core of the broader issue…

God gave us the ability to determine the infertile time…it took us thousands and thousands of years to figure this out, but he gave us that ability. Heck, not too long ago it was thought that sperm contained a complete pre-formed individual… Point being…as our understanding of the Natural Law increases, so should our application of it. Hence my original points about the intention being the same in coitus interuptus and NFP relative to avoiding pregnancy. Further, in both cases our understanding of the biology of the life giving act has increased to the point that we can use our God give design to the same ends.

Seems like the far more important question whether or not there is significant reason to avoid more children (for the record, my wife and I have had 3 children and I’ve always told her that I’d like 10+). I would never use or advocate for the use of artificial methods of birth control or anything that would harm a woman’s body. Seems like the morality associated with this decision is the far more salient point. Beyond that, much of this seems like legalism.

 

[ahs]

I think discussing this question in more detail would help…

3) How does a couple remove the procreative nature of an act that is naturally infertile due to God’s natural design, IF they engage in it the natural way (finishing with intra-vaginal ejaculation)? ANS: They can’t.

Please also include my clarification:

ahs: EDIT to my last post

for my question #3: Not that they “can’t” (because they could by using coitus interruptus), but that they “don’t” because they finish teh act in the natural way.

Here is an objective truth… one can not remove the procreative nature from an act that is infertile… it’s impossible. Procreative means capable of reproducing; generative. I think this question is at the core of the broader issue…

One can indeed remove the procreative nature of an act, even if t in infertile, by acting to separate the procreative nature from the unitive. With coitus interruptus, the couple removes the procreative nature by removing the procreative aspect. In other words, the part that is “ordered, per se, towards procreation” is thwarted. Even in an infertile time, the act can be “ordered, per se, toward procreation” by the couple maintaining the procreative aspect/nature of that act.

IF it were indeed impossible to remove the procreative nature by contracepting, for example, during the infertile time…then why is a couple bothering to contracept during that time? IT is out of fear of becomig pregnent…because ultimately, even though the act is infertile, intravaginal ejaculation is ordered, per se, toward procreation. Although highly unlikely in the infertile period…conception is still possible.

God gave us the ability to determine the infertile time…it took us thousands and thousands of years to figure this out, but he gave us that ability. Heck, not too long ago it was thought that sperm contained a complete pre-formed individual… Point being…as our understanding of the Natural Law increases, so should our application of it. Hence my original points about the intention being the same in coitus interuptus and NFP relative to avoiding pregnancy. Further, in both cases our understanding of the biology of the life giving act has increased to the point that we can use our God give design to the same ends.

I’ve already responded about intent vs. completion of an act. Also, if you will notice inteh links I provided about Natural Law…it is not dependent upon increased understanding and does not change. The nature of conjugal love cannot change, no matter what we may or may not understand about it. Regardless of our intent, we must not seek to remove the procreative aspect of an act that is inherently ordered to procreation…because that goes against “natural law.” We can avoid the act altogether if we like…but when we engage in an act, the act must be ordred, per se, to its ends…even if procreation is unlikely, the act must still be ordered, per se, towards it.

Seems like the far more important question whether or not there is significant reason to avoid more children (for the record, my wife and I have had 3 children and I’ve always told her that I’d like 10+). I would never use or advocate for the use of artificial methods of birth control or anything that would harm a woman’s body. Seems like the morality associated with this decision is the far more salient point. Beyond that, much of this seems like legalism.

That’s a whole different topic. Regardless of the reason or the need to avoid conception…we cannot seek to remove the procreative aspect of an act that is ordered, per se, by natural law, toward procreation. In other words…when we engage in an act, it must be completed in the natural manner.

 

[ahs]

…Hence my original points about the intention being the same in coitus interuptus and NFP relative to avoiding pregnancy. Further, in both cases our understanding of the biology of the life giving act has increased to the point that we can use our God give design to the same ends.

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.

 

[Abu]

Rau Feb 3, '13, 7:31 am #9
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).
godisgood77 Apr 13, '13, 12:40 pm #22
I fail to see a difference between this method of birth control and coitus interrupts where the intention is to avoid pregnancy, the chance of pregnancy is reduced and the deposit is made to a place where life can not occur.
Can someone help me to understand where the difference lies?

God has given us His Church to teach infallibly on faith and morals and She confirms the natural moral law with Her doctrines.

The difference is that, with contraception (like condoms), a couple deliberately places a barrier to procreation while seeking the pleasure of the marital act. With Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) the couple uses what God has provided without deliberately placing a barrier to thwart the procreative end of marriage. NBR may be used only for serious reasons which Christ’s Church has identified, without which the action would be objectively gravely sinful also because it uses a natural process for a wrong end.

God has provided the infertile period so that we may responsibly follow His Will and use it, where necessary, for serious reasons.

In *Casti Connubii *(II, 59), 1930, Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage, and shows the value of the secondary ends of marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Current knowledge of how a woman’s body works we see that women were designed so that almost 2/3rds of the time sex is inherently infertile. This fact shows that the unitive function of sex is just as important as the procreative aspect. At one time it was thought infertility was always an “abnormal” state. Now we find that infertility has been designed as a “normal” state a majority of the time in women.

 

[godisgood77]

I think that this article published by the Jesuit magazine America about the 25th anniversary of Humanae Vitae sums up the “two schools of thought” within the church on this subject… and it, I think, articulates a strong “second option” for thinking about this hotly debated topic …

“The second position insists that the basic issue is not primarily one of method, but of attitude. Spouses are called to generous but responsible openness to new life. Where methods are concerned, more intrusive forms of contraception will not be used where less intrusive ones (natural family planning) satisfy the needs of marital love and responsible parenthood. But artificial methods cannot be ruled out as intrinsically morally wrong.”

americamagazine.org/issue/100/humanae-vitae-25-years-later