Is NFP really open to procreation?

[ahs]

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

You think that a strong second option has been presented because an author has tried to equate NFP and Contraception in an effort to justify contraception? You should start a new thread then. It’s no longer an issue of whether NFP is open to procreation…the author assumes it to be. But then he tries to define it as a form of contraception in an effort to justify contraception. Your new thread should be titles something like “Can contraception be as open to procreation as NFP is?”

But here you have already been provided that answer (several times now):

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.

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.

 

[Abu]

godisgood77 21/4/13, 1:19 pm #40
“artificial methods cannot be ruled out as intrinsically morally wrong."

This is a bare-faced example of dissent attributed to certain Jesuits in their dissenting publication America.
Instead of bowing before false idols, the real Catholic assents to the infallible Magisterial doctrine in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae, rather than to opinions, prejudices, feelings, assumptions.

To refresh:
In 1930, Pope Pius XI infallibly condemned contraception in Casti Connubii after the collapse of the Anglican consensus against contraception at Lambeth in 1930.
“…the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. Casti Connubii, 56, 1930]

In Humanae Vitae Pope Paul VI infallibly formally declares:

1. Affirms his “most grave duty”
2. His decision comes from a “participation in the divine power” given by Christ to Peter and the Apostles.
3. "Consequently, now that We have sifted carefully the evidence sent to Us and intently studied the whole matter, as well as prayed constantly to God, We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.”

The central declaration is then given formally in:
14. “We are obliged once more to declare” abortion, sterilization and contraception as “absolutely excluded” and “condemned” as they are “intrinsically wrong”. Contraception “is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons”.
28, 29. The guidance of the Holy Spirit is repeatedly affirmed.

Throughout, the Holy Father refers to the law of God and the Creator.

 

[LongingSoul]

Is NFP really open to procreation?

Yes.

This example might be hard to grasp considering the excesses of our western culture but think of the example as it relates to cultures where food is a precious commodity and the processes of producing it are less removed from the final consumption.

So think of the sexual function of the body in the way you think of the dietary function of the body. Our appetite is ordered to the health and wellbeing of our bodies and by extension the health and wellbeing of the whole human race.

Our appetite is also a source of pleasure and as always, prone to selfish desire if unchecked.

A ‘catholic’ way of feeding might respect the place of food in the human diet and the function of feeding, by abstaining outside of mealtimes to achieve health. It would dedicate the function of feeding to the context of a mealtime. The meal has a greater significance as it respects the whole dietary meaning of food to mankind and thwarts the concupiscence that our appetites are prone to. Each meal becomes a celebration of the bounty the earth brings forth for the benefit of mankind. It serves the plan of nature and God in the development of human life in every sitting.

That’s how Catholics see the sexual function of the body. It has nuptial meaning in the sense that the natural appetite, functioning and consequences are all ordered to healthy human development through marriage and strong family unity. The sexual appetite is prone to being overtaken by concupiscence which seeks to thwart natures processes in order to indulge the body, setting the act apart from all greater meaning. By keeping site of the nuptial meaning of the body, we choose mastery over concupiscence by fasting and abstinence rather than removing the sexual function from its primal meaning by artificially thwarting natural fertility instead.

So in summing up, think of more moderate cultures and the function of the meal in their lives. It gives the appetite a structure for appreciating the natural dietary meaning of food and feeding, and it keeps concupiscence, that has no regard for God and natures ways, from directing the what, when and how of dietary intake.

As Catholics, we know the great power of fasting and abstinence in mastering concupiscence. It has always been part of the discipline afforded to all our appetites. Contraception by its nature, rejects the place of abstinence in dealing with the sexual appetite and grants concupiscense an esteemed place in the human sexual life.