Isn't Natural Family Planning just another form of birth control?

[Rico_S]

An 80 year old couple has relations that are unitive and procreative. If we use your position they are no longer sharing the marital embrace as God designed. Women have a natural cycle for a reason

Uggh!!! Good Daughter, you may have to take back that kind comment about my patience!

Fix…you don’t understand what I am saying. I am not saying that the reproductive aspect has to be present in order for the act to be procreative…I get that 100%. If a married couple’s reproductive systems are dysfunctional in anyway due to causes beyond their control, that does not take away from the procreative aspect of the marital union. Married couples can enjoy the marital embrace in non-fertile times of the cycle and the act is still procreative and unitive and great and wonderful and pleasing in the eyes of God. I understand that.

That is not the same as INTENTIONALLY ELIMINATING THE RERPRODUCTIVE ASPECT OF THE ACT EACH AND EVERYTIME YOU ENGAGE IN THE MARITAL EMBRACE. The form and function is the same, but you are purposefully eliminating the reproductive aspect of the act, which must detract from the procreative aspect of the union. I think this is fairly obvious and straight forward.

Having relations during a non fertile time is not changing the act. It is not eliminating anything.

Taking your statement for face value, then I can use NFP indefinitely, whenver I want? The church teaches that the answer is no…so something must be lacking or something is eliminated by simply choosing to engage in the marital embrace during non-fertile times only.

–Rico

 

[Good_Daughter]

Really? Becasue I think the silence is deafening.

Okay, I’m with you on this one. Jennifer J’s right, the teaching exists and some faithful Catholics promote it, even write books about it like Christopher West and Gregory Popcack, but it’s tragic that more of us aren’t on board.

So there must be a reason why they don’t feel the need to actively attempt to save our souls?

Because it seems like mission impossible. “Saving our souls” involves convincing people that love means gratification takes a back seat to sacrifice. You could get martyred teaching that kind of stuff. “Do whatever you think is right”, is a much safer teaching.

We used NFP when my wife and I first married to delay getting pregnant until we were a little more financially sound. We got pregnant relatively quickly and had our fist child. We continued its use and were again pregnant relatively quickly. For whatever reason (yes, I know you zealots out there are going to shout at me and say–Rico…you must be doing it wrong!), NFP as a means of spacing/avoiding pregnancy really wasn’t working too well for us…

So if you get to call us “zealots”, what do we get to call you? Kidding.

Seriously though, many of us “zealots” know exactly what you’re talking about. Some otherwise intelligent people have an exceedingly hard time reading fertility signs and knowing when they’re fertile. I tend to place this problem more at the doorstep of medical science than the Church however.

You and you wife sound like great parents with absolutely no need to justify you family size to anyone here. The Church certainly does not judge. Your family size is between yourself, your wife and God. As brothers and sisters in Christ, our role is simply to encourage you to live a life of love and generosity. That may mean you end up with as many as…4 kids.

I truly understand struggling with the seeming ineffectiveness of NFP. Unless good NFP is available to them, Catholics in need of birth control often turn to super easy-access contraceptives. While I hate this fact, and I can never condone their decisions, I can’t say that I blame them.

My wife would laugh at someone calling me patient but thank you for the kind words. I hope to arrive at the truth and fully understand…it seems a bit out of reach for me at this moment (and I am not talking exclusively of NFP, sex, contraception, etc.

Understood. The truth sure can seem elusive sometimes.

I would not argue that the absence of the reproductive aspect of sexual love negates the presence of the life-giving aspect. But **to purposefully eliminate the reproductive aspect **of sexual love …even if the form is unchanged, would seem to negate the life-giving aspect.

–Rico

The part I bolded is important. NFP users do not eliminate the reproductive aspect, nature does, constantly. Whether the egg dies, menopause has already occured or conception previously took place, all NFP users do is observe.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Uggh!!! Good Daughter, you may have to take back that kind comment about my patience!

Fix…you don’t understand what I am saying. I am not saying that the reproductive aspect has to be present in order for the act to be procreative…I get that 100%. If a married couple’s reproductive systems are dysfunctional in anyway due to causes beyond their control, that does not take away from the procreative aspect of the marital union. Married couples can enjoy the marital embrace in non-fertile times of the cycle and the act is still procreative and unitive and great and wonderful and pleasing in the eyes of God. I understand that.

That is not the same as INTENTIONALLY ELIMINATING THE RERPRODUCTIVE ASPECT OF THE ACT EACH AND EVERYTIME YOU ENGAGE IN THE MARITAL EMBRACE. The form and function is the same, but you are purposefully eliminating the reproductive aspect of the act, which must detract from the procreative aspect of the union. I think this is fairly obvious and straight forward.

So what you really take issue with is intentionally separating sex from babies? (Or that the Church teaches there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it?)

Taking your statement for face value, then I can use NFP indefinitely, whenver I want? The church teaches that the answer is no…so something must be lacking or something is eliminated by simply choosing to engage in the marital embrace during non-fertile times only.

–Rico

A couple with serious reason to avoid pregnancy may use NFP indefinitely according to Catholic teaching. Is there anything that says otherwise? Have I misunderstood?

Remember, you’re one guy talking to at least four other people who share an opposing point of view. I still think you’re patient.

 

[Rico_S]

So if you get to call us “zealots”, what do we get to call you? Kidding.

Sinner, maybe? One of the Damned?

My zealot comment was kind of a pre-emptive counterstrike, if you know what I mean. I understand how anonymous internet forums go. With that said, I probably was being overly defensive and was wrong in using the term in that way. I apologize.

But as far as zealots go, you seem ok.

I have more to say here to answer your questions, but can’t get to it now…maybe later.

–Rico

 

[TLM08]

Obviously the married couple who employs artificial birth control so they can avoid having any children and thus afford that second BMW and a condo on the Florida beach are a living example of the abomination to the will of God and are living in a perpetual state of mortal sin.

But what about Joe and Sally Catholic? …both virgins on their wedding night, attend weekly Mass and regular confession, and faithfully raising their 9 beautiful and godly children in the Catholic faith at age 34 realize that they cannot bring any more children into this world decide to augment their NFP with condoms.

A tragic automobile accident takes the lives of Joe and Sally as they were driving across town to help care for an aging relative about to enter hospice… Did Joe and Sally die in a state of mortal sin?

 

[fix]

That is not the same as INTENTIONALLY ELIMINATING THE RERPRODUCTIVE ASPECT OF THE ACT EACH AND EVERYTIME YOU ENGAGE IN THE MARITAL EMBRACE. The form and function is the same, but you are purposefully eliminating the reproductive aspect of the act, which must detract from the procreative aspect of the union. I think this is fairly obvious and straight forward.

But, again, one is not intentionally eliminating anything from the act. One is engaging in the act as is rightly ordered.

Taking your statement for face value, then I can use NFP indefinitely, whenver I want?

For legitimate reasons, yes.

The church teaches that the answer is no…so something must be lacking or something is eliminated by simply choosing to engage in the marital embrace during non-fertile times only.

–Rico

Where does the Church say no?

This is from HV:

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)
With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.
With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

 

[fix]

And this:

The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws…

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act…

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…

 

[fix]

NFP users do not eliminate the reproductive aspect, nature does, constantly. Whether the egg dies, menopause has already occured or conception previously took place, all NFP users do is observe.

Exactly right. Not engaging during fertile times does not change fertility, it does not eliminate fertily, it does not supppress fertility.

The act happens as intended and unaltered.

 

[fix]

Obviously the married couple who employs artificial birth control so they can avoid having any children and thus afford that second BMW and a condo on the Florida beach are a living example of the abomination to the will of God and are living in a perpetual state of mortal sin.

But what about Joe and Sally Catholic? …both virgins on their wedding night, attend weekly Mass and regular confession, and faithfully raising their 9 beautiful and godly children in the Catholic faith at age 34 realize that they cannot bring any more children into this world decide to augment their NFP with condoms.

A tragic automobile accident takes the lives of Joe and Sally as they were driving across town to help care for an aging relative about to enter hospice… Did Joe and Sally die in a state of mortal sin?

Objectively, yes, they were in sin. Subjectively, we cannot ever know how culpable they were.

Are you trying to say that contraceptive acts are not really that serious? I hope not because that would be untrue and very hard to argue considering the Church has always taught it is a grave sin.

 

[Rico_S]

One is engaging in the act as is rightly ordered.

Fix, can you expound on that some. What is rightly ordered? Where does the evil lie if it the marital act, taking place within the proper context, is not ordered in the manner you describe? Has this “rightly ordered” view changed over time?

–Rico

 

[newbetx]

Sounds like some folks here think that sex without potential consequence is some sort of right or something. Can we guess who convinced them of that? They talk as if a marriage can’t survive without constant sex or something. Can we guess who convinced them of that?

If one can’t “live” without sex (alcohol, cocaine, money, whatever) then one has a problem that no amount of rules or guidelines will solve. Only with the grace of God can one overcome the desires of the flesh and comprehend what a wonderful gift of love sex really is. Only then can they understand the “why” behind the rules.

Been there, done that. I allowed myself to be decieved in a similar fashion. It almost cost me all I held dear. But by His grace were my eyes opened. My heart refilled with love and my life, marriage and value restored.

I can only pitty these people. None are so blind as those that will not open their eyes. None so deaf as those that refuse to listen. None are so ignorant as those that think they know it all.

 

[Rico_S]

Sounds like some folks here think that sex without potential consequence is some sort of right or something. Can we guess who convinced them of that? They talk as if a marriage can’t survive without constant sex or something. Can we guess who convinced them of that?

If one can’t “live” without sex (alcohol, cocaine, money, whatever) then one has a problem that no amount of rules or guidelines will solve. Only with the grace of God can one overcome the desires of the flesh and comprehend what a wonderful gift of love sex really is. Only then can they understand the “why” behind the rules.

Been there, done that. I allowed myself to be decieved in a similar fashion. It almost cost me all I held dear. But by His grace were my eyes opened. My heart refilled with love and my life, marriage and value restored.

I can only pitty these people. None are so blind as those that will not open their eyes. None so deaf as those that refuse to listen. None are so ignorant as those that think they know it all.

Whew! Thanks for coming in here and clearing that up for us Newbtex! Brilliant!

How is the view up there?

 

[newbetx]

Whew! Thanks for coming in here and clearing that up for us Newbtex! Brilliant!

How is the view up there?

The point isn’t that “I’m better than you.” If you care to listen. If you care to understand, if you would really SEEK to do so, you will understand and enjoy the benefits. But you appear to come to argue. Not to understand. Like you are judging what we say based on how it moves you. No. You must be willing to move, then you can find the truth.

And you don’t know how much I can relate to “NFP didn’t work for us.” So please don’t think I’m dumping the “holier than thou” thing on you. I’m not. What I am saying is that many of us needed a better understanding of our relationship with God and our wives. And until you get that, you’ll continue to focus too narrowly on what you perceive to be the problem. Like I said. BTDT.

 

[Rico_S]

So please don’t think I’m dumping the “holier than thou” thing on you. I’m not. .

Go read your post.

Sounds like some folks here think that sex without potential consequence is some sort of right or something. Can we guess who convinced them of that? They talk as if a marriage can’t survive without constant sex or something.

How condescending and arrogant…and completely wrong. You clearly not paying attention and only commenting on generalities.

If one can’t “live” without sex (alcohol, cocaine, money, whatever) then one has a problem that no amount of rules or guidelines will solve.

Please quote a post in here (from me) to which this statement applies. You can’t.

can only pitty these people. None are so blind as those that will not open their eyes. None so deaf as those that refuse to listen. None are so ignorant as those that think they know it all.

Holy Cow!!! Can you any more condescending. If you can’t see it then I dont know what to say. You come across as a grade A tool…period. The warm blanket of anonymity is quite cozy, isn’t it?

If you care to understand, if you would really SEEK to do so, you will understand and enjoy the benefits. But you appear to come to argue.

By understanding you mean accept without challenge? I am not there yet. Discussing the issues with people helps clarify my thinking, I am a work in progress. Trust me, I know that I have no chance of winning any argument here. But perhaps having the flaws in my thought process pointed out, I may be led in the right direction. However, I doubt that I find the grace of God through your posts------first impressions and all. Perhaps you could have been more helpful if you hadn’t start out so badly. Sorry, no do overs.

–Rico

 

[graceandglory]

The intent is still to prevent conception… contra-ception. :

According to your definition, I’m contra-cepting right now.
Read what the Church has to say on Responsible Parenthood. Yes, there can be good or bad motives. God cares about the hidden motives in our heart. That is the bottom line. Some people practice responsible and holy chastity in their marriage, others DO have a contraceptive mentality. Our hearts will either approve us or condemn us.

It’s a good thing that in areas that we don’t understand, we defer to the Church’s Magisterium to guide us.

 

[newbetx]

By understanding you mean accept without challenge? I am not there yet.

Heck no, I don’t mean that. I could never do that myself. That’s why it took years for me get this stuff. And IMAO, you shouldn’t accept blindly.

Discussing the issues with people helps clarify my thinking, I am a work in progress. Trust me, I know that I have no chance of winning any argument here. But perhaps having the flaws in my thought process pointed out, I may be led in the right direction.

Many come here to argue. Good to know you are not one of them.

I will tell you that you won’t find your answers here. Impossible to communicate what you need in a few posts with other people. A bunch of folks have tried and see? No luck yet.

However, I doubt that I find the grace of God through your posts------first impressions and all. Perhaps you could have been more helpful if you hadn’t start out so badly. Sorry, no do overs.

–Rico

To be quite honest, Rico. I don’t aim at people. I was speaking generalities. But you were more than happy to shoot back. So I accepted your challenge.

“Sorry, no do overs.” OK, no apology, either. Seems fair. Let me know if you’d like change the game.

OK. Just so you know I was reading your posts.

My zealot comment was kind of a pre-emptive counterstrike, if you know what I mean…But as far as zealots go, you seem ok.

–Rico

Well, at least you apologized. Very good. That woman is very nice and informative. But again, I’m not impressed you are really wanting to learn as much as you are looking for justification not to follow Church doctrine

…

We have since had 2 more kids for a grand total of 4. And I might add that we are truly blessed with great kids…truly blessed. But I am pretty happy with the size of my family. It is a struggle to send all 4 to Catholic school, but we do so b/c that is a priority for us. Could we have more kids…

No, I’m not saying you are wrong for thinking that 4 is enough for you. So far, not one peep about what your wife thinks about all this. It’s all about what YOU think and what YOU want to do. There is an important point you seem to be missing here, too.

…
I am quite sure that my justification for not wanting more kids is not satisfactory for most of you here—Perhpas it is…and I will be judged as such if so. So even if we chose to use NFP at this point in our lives, the church would still judge it as sinful (as our intent is to use it as a contraceptive). I don’t really have a choice in the matter…I must be open to having more kids or I am committing a grave sin.
–Rico

Nope. You missed something. The CCC clearly states that one must be prudent in their choice on how large a family to have. I, nor anyone on these forums can make that call for you and your wife, although some will try. God does understand selfishness and you are correct, He will judge you if that is true for you.

…
But the bottom line for us is that NFP did not work for us (cue the “rico, you aren’t doing it right! posts”) .I am not inclined to in give it another whirl as a method of “spacing” births or even using it as a contraceptive.

–Rico

So again we hear about you and what you don’t want to hear about. Your mind is made up?

 

[newbetx]

And this post really confuses me.

Really? Becasue I think the silence is deafening.

Someone earlier in this thread referenced the 90% of the Catholics are using some form of birth control–I doubt that is far off at all. …
Ok…so 90% of we Catholics are in a state of mortal sin…and the priests and bishop have so much concern for our souls that they…schedule plenty of NFP classes and put them in the bulletin…include NFP in pre-cana cirriculums…??? What? The souls of 90% of all Catholics are blackened with the grave sin and that it the best the Church can do??? I think Christ would be disappointed…no?

I don’t know what the reason is, but I don’t think the Church is active at all in this regard, especially considering the gravity and sweeping scope of the sin.

–Rico

In our parish bulletin, there are classes, resources and other information for NFP. At our Parish, the newly engaged are not only given talks about NFP, they are given the book “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West by the priest!

As for the 90% of Catholics…that stat is impossible. Heck, less than 50% even set foot in a catholic church. How are they supposed to be taught something by priests anyway? Don’t blame the priests for these people not understanding this stuff. They can’t be incharge of what you want to believe. If you ask them, I bet you would get some answers, but I will agree that many are not properly informed either. That too will change with time.

You claim to send your children to Catholic School to be given an education in the faith by priests that apparently are not teaching the parish about the faith in a complete manner. So who is expected to take up the slack? Guess who? YOU ARE. Think you can do that when you think NFP is silly or just plain "Catholic Contraception? "

Uggh!!! Good Daughter, you may have to take back that kind comment about my patience!

…
Taking your statement for face value, then I can use NFP indefinitely, whenver I want? The church teaches that the answer is no…so something must be lacking or something is eliminated by simply choosing to engage in the marital embrace during non-fertile times only.

–Rico

NFP isn’t “Catholic Contraception.” That’s a common misconception. (pun intended.) And yes, I’ve seen such things written by Bishops! That is why most never understand. They think it’s apples to apples. It’s not as many here have tried to explain.

You sir are taking good steps toward understanding. Priests are not responsible for our faith and our investment in it. We are.

And I did not realize at first that you are relatively new here. But I did say I wouldn’t apologize since it wouldn’t do any good anyway.