Marriage and being "open to life"

[Tosk]

the CCC talks about periodic continence or spacing babies not NFP… and it’s NOT a natural means of CONTRACEPTION. It’s a licit way to space babies that is endorsed and accepted by the Bishops and the Pope.

contraception
NOUN: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

contraception
Noun
the deliberate use of artificial or natural means to prevent pregnancy [contra- + conception]

contraception
Noun
any method used, while remaining sexually active, to prevent pregnancy

It is really just arguing over semantics, but any definition of contraception I can find includes NFP. I don’t see any point in trying to redefine the way a word is used to exclude NFP. The way I understand it is that the church isn’t opposed to contraception, only methods of contraception that interfere with the reproductive nature of the sex act.

 

[agapewolf]

contraception
NOUN: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

contraception
Noun
the deliberate use of artificial or natural means to prevent pregnancy [contra- + conception]

contraception
Noun
any method used, while remaining sexually active, to prevent pregnancy

It is really just arguing over semantics, but any definition of contraception I can find includes NFP. I don’t see any point in trying to redefine the way a word is used to exclude NFP. The way I understand it is that the church isn’t opposed to contraception, only methods of contraception that interfere with the reproductive nature of the sex act.

it absolutely does NOT include NFP. Avoiding fertile times is an INaction…it can’t prevent anything actively by definition.

the 2nd definition you have given (but not with a source?) is referring to withdrawal…which is actively thwarting the act itself.

If this is a dictionary definition, you cannot rely on secular semantics when discussing moral and theological truths. The medical journals have redefined “conception” to mean when implantation happens, when, as pro-life catholics, we know very well it is fertilization.

 

[Em_in_FL]

contraception
NOUN: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

contraception
Noun
the deliberate use of artificial or natural means to prevent pregnancy [contra- + conception]

contraception
Noun
any method used, while remaining sexually active, to prevent pregnancy

It is really just arguing over semantics, but any definition of contraception I can find includes NFP. I don’t see any point in trying to redefine the way a word is used to exclude NFP. The way I understand it is that the church isn’t opposed to contraception, only methods of contraception that interfere with the reproductive nature of the sex act.

Read that last definition… It says
“any method used, while remaining sexually active, to prevent pregnancy”

NFP is abstaining, NOT being sexually active WHILE using the method to prevent pregnancy. When ANY couple has sex during the infertile phase, are they contracepting???

 

[agapewolf]

Read that last definition… It says
“any method used, while remaining sexually active, to prevent pregnancy”

NFP is abstaining, NOT being sexually active WHILE using the method to prevent pregnancy. When ANY couple has sex during the infertile phase, are they contracepting???

actually, it isn’t “preventing” anything. the word prevent is an action. the abstaining time is in-action. So it can’t be preventing anything.

 

[nodito]

ac claire:

Is there anything out there aside from the little blurb about natural means of contraception in the CCC? (Last night I couldn’t even find NFP listed by name in the Catechism. I might have just missed it.)

I’ve noticed that in most documents NFP is usally referred to as “natural birth regulation,” “natural means of fertility regulation,” or “periodic continence.” You will find it discussed (sometimes at great length) in not only the CCC, but also in Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubii, Familiaris Consortio, Pope Pius XII’s Allocution to Midwives, Pope John Paul II’s book Love and Responsibility, Theology of the Body, Message of the Holy Father Paul VI to the Archbishop of New York Cardinal Cooke signed May 1978, Message of John Paul II on the Occasion of the International Convention on “Natural Regulation of Fertility and Culture of Life”, and others. You can find most of these documents on the vatican website: vatican.va by searching for “natural birth regulation.” There’s tons more written about NFP by Catholic lay people that address to some extent your concerns about just use of NFP. I recommend Janet Smith, Christopher West, and Kathleen van Schaijik, because I find them to be highly orthodox. You may also find Thomas Stork’s NFP: A Defense and Explanation to be an interesting read. hprweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64:nfp-a-defense-and-an-explanation&catid=35lder-articles&Itemid=54#8

Also, it’s important that as Catholics we avoid referring to NFP as contraception. Though public health and popular medicine see the two as synonamous, they are not. The popes have consistently maintained that the two are very different. If you’re bothered by the secular attitude with which some people treat NFP, you need to stop calling NFP contraception, which only serves to confuse people and leads non-Catholics to belive that they are right in considering the two to be morally equal.

 

[Em_in_FL]

actually, it isn’t “preventing” anything. the word prevent is an action. the abstaining time is in-action. So it can’t be preventing anything.

Yup… You just misread what I meant… Notice the comma after “NFP is abstaining”… . It’s NOT that other stuff I mentioned after…

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Encyclicals and Infallibility Thread w/links
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4426515

They are authoritative…please read and follow the links for a better understanding.

Thank you for the info…I wanted to answer yesterday evening, but I needed to log off.

.

a.) a lot (not all, but a lot) of the discussion about NFP use sounds so much like a secular couple discussing any other form of artificial birth control. You could swap out “NFP” for “the pill” or “condoms” in many of these discussions, the rationale and the attitude is so similar. There is very little talk of having a good reason, or prayer or talking with a priest or anything like that. There is no reservation, it’s just like…“we wanna do it, we’re doing it.”
Just some background on myself, I’m a revert. I’ll try to explain something the way I understand it. The Church condemns ABC because it closes off the possibility of life with each act of intimacy. But that isn’t the only reason. A couple who uses the Pill for example, has artificially made themselves sexually available to each other always with no chance of conception. The couple is intimate, but is frustrating the 2 fold purpose of sexuality, unitive and procreative. They are denying the procreative part. I don’t know if you watch EWTN? There was a priest named Father Shaugnessy who often said the daily Mass. He gave awesome homilies. In one he described contracepted sex as mutual masturbation. A husband and wife should be more to each other than an object of lust.
The couple has intimacy when they want and purposefully removes the procreative.

A couple that uses NFP to avoid GIVES UP INTIMACY. They do not use each other as an object of lust. They realize that when they are intimate, they haven’t altered the sex act to make it sterile. They realize and understand that a baby can occur, and accept that in their hearts. Truthfully, when a man realizes that he could impregnate his wife at any point, he respects her in a way a couple on the Pill cannot. He realizes that he can become a father. It becomes really hard to* lust *the mother of your children.

In the first few years of my marriage we used contraception. Now we practice NFP. What was the difference? Selfishness. “Let’s be intimate…but make sure you have the device that will protect us from having a baby.” or “Your not in the mood, why? We don’t have to worry about anything.”

Finally, I think NFP is really hard to abuse…because a couple who practices NFP, is probably Catholic, probably practicing, and probably close to the sacraments. The sacraments give us grace. Grace helps us do the right and just things. When we were using contraceptives, we were Catholic by name only. We didn’t even go to Mass on Christmas or Easter.

b.) as soon as anyone voices a concern similar to my own, the “stop judging us!” cry is thrown out so quickly and with such immediate force that it makes my head spin. That kind of kneejerk defensiveness alone is a red flag in any discussion, IMO. Well, for myself, I* could* feel defensive because as a couple we try to do what is right in the eyes of God, we know the difference on how things were and how they are now. We aren’t perfect, but because we don’t have 7 kids, doesn’t make us less Catholic. Does that make sense? (I said could, because no defensiveness here.)

So…again, these are generalities, I know that. I’m not talking about anyone in particular here, but just about the general trend I’ve seen. I know I’m not alone in noticing the “trend”…My point is that something is different; either I was taught wrong in the first place, or there has been some kind of subtle shift in attitude/tone. I can’t help but think this could all be remedied by having more official teaching about it from the Church.

Is there anything out there aside from the little blurb about natural means of contraception in the CCC? (Last night I couldn’t even find NFP listed by name in the Catechism. I might have just missed it.) I believe the Catechism refers to “periodic continence” I don’t think it refers to NFP specifically per se. But I believe that has to do with linguistics more than anything

 

[Jennifer_J]

contraception
NOUN: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

contraception
Noun
the deliberate use of artificial or natural means to prevent pregnancy [contra- + conception]

contraception
Noun
any method used, while remaining sexually active, to prevent pregnancy

It is really just arguing over semantics, but any definition of contraception I can find includes NFP. I don’t see any point in trying to redefine the way a word is used to exclude NFP. The way I understand it is that the church isn’t opposed to contraception, only methods of contraception that interfere with the reproductive nature of the sex act.

Great secular definitions…now try the Catholic one:
<<Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. >>
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

NFP doesn’t render the act of intercourse infertile–if the woman is fertile and intercourse takes place, she can get pregnant and if the woman is not fertile then she can’t get pregnant. Nothing is done to the act.

 

[sarahraegraham]

The “only should be used for a serious reason” clause seems to have gone out the window. I realize I’m being very general here, but I don’t see any way around it so please bear with me. The two biggest things I notice are:

a.) a lot (not all, but a lot) of the discussion about NFP use sounds so much like a secular couple discussing any other form of artificial birth control. You could swap out “NFP” for “the pill” or “condoms” in many of these discussions, the rationale and the attitude is so similar. There is very little talk of having a good reason, or prayer or talking with a priest or anything like that. There is no reservation, it’s just like…“we wanna do it, we’re doing it.”

b.) as soon as anyone voices a concern similar to my own, the “stop judging us!” cry is thrown out so quickly and with such immediate force that it makes my head spin. That kind of kneejerk defensiveness alone is a red flag in any discussion, IMO.

So…again, these are generalities, I know that. I’m not talking about anyone in particular here, but just about the general trend I’ve seen. I know I’m not alone in noticing the “trend”…My point is that something is different; either I was taught wrong in the first place, or there has been some kind of subtle shift in attitude/tone. I can’t help but think this could all be remedied by having more official teaching about it from the Church.

Is there anything out there aside from the little blurb about natural means of contraception in the CCC? (Last night I couldn’t even find NFP listed by name in the Catechism. I might have just missed it.)

You put this together very well! My thoughts also, especially about the subtle shift. I think that’s where we’re at.

contraception
NOUN: Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

contraception
Noun
the deliberate use of artificial or natural means to prevent pregnancy [contra- + conception]

contraception
Noun
any method used, while remaining sexually active, to prevent pregnancy

It is really just arguing over semantics, but any definition of contraception I can find includes NFP. I don’t see any point in trying to redefine the way a word is used to exclude NFP. The way I understand it is that the church isn’t opposed to contraception, only methods of contraception that interfere with the reproductive nature of the sex act.

Thank you! We have to be careful about twisting a definition to fit what our mentality about a specific topic.

I had some different thoughts this morning that I wanted to share. I recalled (true story) a situation where a woman became very ill, and to become pregnant would mean both her and the baby’s death. I think it might have been cancer, and she would have had to stop treatments and there was a 0% chance of survival. So the couple decided to completely and totally abstain for the entire duration until she was cured. Which she eventually was and they went on to have children.

Now, when the memory of that story came to me, my mind immediately said, yes, that is a-okay. So then I start processing it some more. “So logic says that just going with the flow, is okay, and that complete abstinence for a grave/serious reason is okay. Where does the confusion within me lie?” And I realized what it was, I discovered it makes sense. It’s like taking the milk but not wanting to buy the cow, but then being *forced *to once the farmer finds out your taking it for free. Isn’t that, by nature, immoral, i.e., not within objective morality?

Sex is twofold: unitive and procreative, right? So, we’re married, and we want to be unified through sex, but we don’t want the procreative part. That’s the same thing that’s wrong with ABC! And there are numerous other ways to be unified. That’s where I would say it sounds logical for the proper thing if a couple has a serious reason to delay having a child, for abstinence to be the answer. Sure, NFP is sacrificial and makes the couple grow and understand their fertility. But abstinence requires just as much knowledge of fertility, and sacrifice, and it could be rightly said a great deal more sacrifice, so if the sacrifice of NFP is something being used to justify it, how much more does it justify abstinence?

And also, for some circumstances that people can list as serious (lack of health care, finances, marital problems), it takes 9 months for a child to come into the world, and those things could be fixed within that time, we don’t know. That’s why it seems to me that those who say some couples only choose to use NFP for a month or so, it makes no sense at all.

How about fasting? We fast from food for a time so that we can concentrate on God. Fasting from sex would/should help a couple concentrate on prayer (scripture refers to that) and to their entire relationship other than the sexual aspect. It would/should bring them closer through whatever difficult situation they find themselves in.

God always provides in all other areas that seem hopeless, so why not this one?

If this is a dictionary definition, you cannot rely on secular semantics when discussing moral and theological truths.

Pray tell, how is it that a single definition is contradictory, but not the rest? It’s obvious what it means “contra” + “ception”. Against conception.

 

[Rico_S]

If you know someone cannot come to an event, you don’t send a “dis-invitation” saying “you aren’t invited, don’t come” (contraception). You may still have the event anyway, even if they can’t come, and just not send an invite because you know they cannot come. (avoiding fertile times).

I don’t really think this is a great analogy, but maybe I am just dimwitted. Here is how I would view your “invitation” analogy. I know my brother John works weekdays 5:00PM-1:00 AM, and I like to have a family get together once a month. Using NFP TAC is like scheduling the party for the first Wed of each month, and making sure to send an invitation to John. Using contraception is like having the get togethers on Sunday afternoon and not inviting John. Is there a difference…sure. But there is something fundamentally…lacking… in practicing NFP TAC, which is why my wife and I cannot practice NFP to avoid from the outset of our marriage throughout…without serious reason.

So I ask again, why can I not practice NFP to avoid conception from the start of our marriage without serious reason?

 

[nodito]

It is really just arguing over semantics, but any definition of contraception I can find includes NFP. I don’t see any point in trying to redefine the way a word is used to exclude NFP. The way I understand it is that the church isn’t opposed to contraception, only methods of contraception that interfere with the reproductive nature of the sex act.

Except that the Church is opposed to contraception, and quite firmly. It is something that has been reiterated over and over:
Paul VI:

Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong

John Paul II:

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves and their married partner by altering its value of “total” self-giving.

CCC:

The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

The world doesn’t understand the purpose of sexuality, and so it groups by intention rather than means. In other words, anything that is done with the intention of avoiding pregnancy is considered a contraceptive in the fields of medicine or public health. But the Church rightly sees a distinction between methods to avoid pregnancy which are done in conforminty with natural law and those that aren’t, and so she groups by means of preventing pregnancy. Intention is insufficient for determining whether a method is immoral, that is, whether it separates the unitive and procreative aspect of intercourse. It’s not a matter of redefining anything; it’s a matter of insisting that there is a sharp distinction which the world, with its distorted view of sexuality, is unable to see right now.

 

[Rico_S]

Great secular definitions…now try the Catholic one:
<<Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. >>
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

So as catholics, you and I must be aware then that the Catholic deifinition is not interchangeable with the more common, secular definition. And so it is clearly reasonable for anyone who is not aware that some words don’t mean the same thing in “Catholic speak” as they do in common everyday use, to look upon practicing NFP as a method of contraception.

So when you say things like this…

the CCC talks about periodic continence or spacing babies not NFP… and it’s NOT a natural means of CONTRACEPTION.

Those who are familiar with the more common understanding of “contraception” are not likely to agree with you here.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Sex is twofold: unitive and procreative, right? So, we’re married, and we want to be unified through sex, but we don’t want the procreative part. That’s the same thing that’s wrong with ABC! And there are numerous other ways to be unified. That’s where I would say it sounds logical for the proper thing if a couple has a serious reason to delay having a child, for abstinence to be the answer. Sure, NFP is sacrificial and makes the couple grow and understand their fertility. But abstinence requires just as much knowledge of fertility, and sacrifice, and it could be rightly said a great deal more sacrifice, so if the sacrifice of NFP is something being used to justify it, how much more does it justify abstinence?

And also, for some circumstances that people can list as serious (lack of health care, finances, marital problems), it takes 9 months for a child to come into the world, and those things could be fixed within that time, we don’t know. That’s why it seems to me that those who say some couples only choose to use NFP for a month or so, it makes no sense at all.

How about fasting? We fast from food for a time so that we can concentrate on God. Fasting from sex would/should help a couple concentrate on prayer (scripture refers to that) and to their entire relationship other than the sexual aspect. It would/should bring them closer through whatever difficult situation they find themselves in.

God always provides in all other areas that seem hopeless, so why not this one?

Pray tell, how is it that a single definition is contradictory, but not the rest? It’s obvious what it means “contra” + “ception”. Against conception.

Again - you don’t understand the Church’s definition of “procreation”.
It does NOT mean “fertile”. Otherwise each and every time couples had sex during the infertile phase they wouldn’t be keeping with the “twofold nature” of sex within marriage. Not to mention the fact that some couples are totally infertile… is sex within their marriage unacceptable?
Your definition is confusing and misleading.

Clearly, you have not been in a situation where understanding the need to use NFP was necessary. Please, count your blessings and don’t judge the behavior simply because you have been so blessed as to not need it. This teaching is *clearly *laid out in the teachings of the faith… so if you personally disagree, then that’s fine… you don’t HAVE to use it…

 

[Tosk]

Great secular definitions…now try the Catholic one:
<<Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods. >>
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

NFP doesn’t render the act of intercourse infertile–if the woman is fertile and intercourse takes place, she can get pregnant and if the woman is not fertile then she can’t get pregnant. Nothing is done to the act.

I will use that definition when I want to confuse and annoy the person I am arguing with. When the person I am arguing with speaks modern english I will refer to NFP as contraception. It is difficult enough to convince somebody without them thinking you are just playing games with semantics. just my experience from arguing with people over NFP.

Even your definition would include NFP to most people. They would just argue that charting, observations, taking temperature certainly does include actions taken in anticipation of sex. But then again what is the point of spending 90% of the argument on semantics? I just try to explain Natural Law and how NFP is the only form of contraception that respects Natural Law.

 

[BiologyBrain]

I’ll try to explain my own difficulty here. It’s going to be hard because this thread is VERY general (I didn’t want to single out the two specific threads I was talking about) and what the Church has written/taught publically about NFP is IMO ridiculously inadequate. Given all this, it’s very hard to put my finger on an exact “bad feeling” but I’ll try lol.

I don’t know that what the Church has written/taught about NFP is inadequate, so much as not line-by-line guidelines. The Church has left couples to discern through prayer what constitutes a ‘just reason’ for them. I kind of look at it as the Church also leaves individuals up to discerning through prayer whether they are called to religious or married life. The Church can’t exactly give a line-by-line play-book for either of these things b/c they are very personal decisions. Yes, they can me made in error and abused (both calls from God), but in general the CCC intends for us to have well-formed consciences.

When I first heard about NFP it was at CCD when I was in high school. I learned the basics there and then my grandma fleshed it out for me afterwards. It made sense…it was just a “natural” form of birth control, sort of like the rhythm method, requiring that a couple be very aware of the woman’s fertile times every month, etc., etc. It did strike me as being very similar to regular ol’ birth control and I was told that NFP had to be used very judiciously; only for a serious and just reason. (This was not taught as an afterthought, but was integral to the whole concept of NFP.) So, that was the extent of my teaching on NFP. I learned it but I was still a kid so there wasn’t really any practical application to my life at that point.

What you learned is correct entirely. A fundamental aspect of properly using NFP is prayerful discernment & just reasons.

Fast forward 10 years later and I’m about to be married, and I’m forced by the diocese to take an NFP course. I start looking things up on message boards like this one and it’s a bit shocking. The “only should be used for a serious reason” clause seems to have gone out the window.

Its not necessarily NFP that’s suffering from this phenomenon. Its the general watering down of the faith that has become so prevalent. Its not as widely taught that a sin is a sin anymore. Instead its all love, peace, good-will, etc. As a matter of fact, I just read an article about this phenomenon yesterday by Fr. Z… The Problem w/ Toning Down the Rhetoric NFP is not the only victim. That’s not an excuse by any means, but it is a reassurance IMO that NFP is no more fundamentally wrong or bad b/c of this toning down than anything else that has been toned down through the years. Its simply a matter of many people not being properly catechized and those poorly catechized people passing on their information.

a.) a lot (not all, but a lot) of the discussion about NFP use sounds so much like a secular couple discussing any other form of artificial birth control. You could swap out “NFP” for “the pill” or “condoms” in many of these discussions, the rationale and the attitude is so similar. There is very little talk of having a good reason, or prayer or talking with a priest or anything like that. There is no reservation, it’s just like…“we wanna do it, we’re doing it.”

Like my previous statement indicated, this is not a reflection that NFP is immoral or wrong in any way. Instead it is a reflection on the poor catechization of the faithful. Also, not all the methods and/or practicioners are guilty of the toning down… For instance, there are countless references in the manual for the Creighton Model of NFP that clearly states that just reasons are necessary and the couple should almost continually prayerfully discern their true calling as parents.

b.) as soon as anyone voices a concern similar to my own, the "stop judging us

!" cry is thrown out so quickly and with such immediate force that it makes my head spin. That kind of kneejerk defensiveness alone is a red flag in any discussion, IMO.

To generalize, like you have, that’s generally b/c the concerns aren’t necessarily nicely phrased. Many of the concerns start w/ “NFP is just like contraception and immoral…” or something similar. That is going to lead to a defensive reaction from faithful, sincere, NFP practioners. Another factor is that many of those w/ concerns are using the argument that since NFP is actually contraception, then their personal use of contraception is not immoral either. It is also fostered by the many myths and misconceptions about NFP and those who practice it. That’s not an excuse, but from participating in these types of threads fairly regularly since I joined CAF, that’s been my experience.

So…again, these are generalities, I know that. I’m not talking about anyone in particular here, but just about the general trend I’ve seen. I know I’m not alone in noticing the “trend”…My point is that something is different; either I was taught wrong in the first place, or there has been some kind of subtle shift in attitude/tone. I can’t help but think this could all be remedied by having more official teaching about it from the Church.

Is there anything out there aside from the little blurb about natural means of contraception in the CCC? (Last night I couldn’t even find NFP listed by name in the Catechism. I might have just missed it.)

I think this has already been addressed by others who posted prior to me, but in general NFP is not referenced by name. Instead it is periodic continence, periodic abstinence, fertility management, etc.

 

[nodito]

Now, when the memory of that story came to me, my mind immediately said, yes, that is a-okay. So then I start processing it some more. “So logic says that just going with the flow, is okay, and that complete abstinence for a grave/serious reason is okay. Where does the confusion within me lie?” And I realized what it was, I discovered it makes sense. It’s like taking the milk but not wanting to buy the cow, but then being *forced *to once the farmer finds out your taking it for free. Isn’t that, by nature, immoral, i.e., not within objective morality?

I don’t quite understand this analogy. Could you elaborate a little bit?

sarahraegraham:

Sex is twofold: unitive and procreative, right? So, we’re married, and we want to be unified through sex, but we don’t want the procreative part. That’s the same thing that’s wrong with ABC!

No, the problem with ABC is that it separates the two aspects, which is not the same as saying that a couple using NFP and a couple using contraception both want to avoid children for the time being. Intention is important, yes, but so are the means.

sarahraegraham:

That’s where I would say it sounds logical for the proper thing if a couple has a serious reason to delay having a child, for abstinence to be the answer. Sure, NFP is sacrificial and makes the couple grow and understand their fertility. But abstinence requires just as much knowledge of fertility, and sacrifice, and it could be rightly said a great deal more sacrifice, so if the sacrifice of NFP is something being used to justify it, how much more does it justify abstinence?

It may be true that complete abstinence would be more sacrificial. I’ll even grant that it may help a specific couple grow more in virtue. But to insist that couples with just reasons for avoiding pregnancy completely avoid intercourse is to “add to the law” that which is not there, specifically, a harsh requirement that the Lord never intended for married couples.

sarahraegraham:

And also, for some circumstances that people can list as serious (lack of health care, finances, marital problems), it takes 9 months for a child to come into the world, and those things could be fixed within that time, we don’t know. That’s why it seems to me that those who say some couples only choose to use NFP for a month or so, it makes no sense at all.

My husband and I used NFP this year to avoid for exactly one cycle, after a recent miscarriage. It’s not that we would have been unable to support or care for a child, on the contrary, we really want one and were devestated when we lost our son. But my midwife advised that we should avoid for a cycle in order to allow my uterus to heal and to reduce the risk of miscarriage again. My husband (who ironically enough feels very much like you do in regards to NFP) and I both felt that this was a serious reason to avoid pregnancy and so we abstained for three weeks that cycle.

sarahraegraham:

How about fasting? We fast from food for a time so that we can concentrate on God. Fasting from sex would/should help a couple concentrate on prayer (scripture refers to that) and to their entire relationship other than the sexual aspect. It would/should bring them closer through whatever difficult situation they find themselves in.

Exactly, and NFP allows you to fast for a week or two weeks time. But just as we wouldn’t go an inordinate amount of time without food, so too are married couples encouraged not to go too long without coming together again. This prevents couples from falling into temptation.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t really think this is a great analogy, but maybe I am just dimwitted. Here is how I would view your “invitation” analogy. I know my brother John works weekdays 5:00PM-1:00 AM, and I like to have a family get together once a month. Using NFP TAC is like scheduling the party for the first Wed of each month, and making sure to send an invitation to John. Using contraception is like having the get togethers on Sunday afternoon and not inviting John. Is there a difference…sure. But there is something fundamentally…lacking… in practicing NFP TAC, which is why my wife and I cannot practice NFP to avoid from the outset of our marriage throughout…without serious reason.

So I ask again, why can I not practice NFP to avoid conception from the start of our marriage without serious reason?

Well John could get a night off on a Wednesday sometimes.

Contraception is more like having a party on Sunday, calling up John and telling him, “I’m having a party…but you better not show your face!”

 

[sarahraegraham]

Again - you don’t understand the Church’s definition of “procreation”.
It does NOT mean “fertile”. Otherwise each and every time couples had sex during the infertile phase they wouldn’t be keeping with the “twofold nature” of sex within marriage. Not to mention the fact that some couples are totally infertile… is sex within their marriage unacceptable?
Your definition is confusing and misleading.

Clearly, you have not been in a situation where understanding the need to use NFP was necessary. Please, count your blessings and don’t judge the behavior simply because you have been so blessed as to not need it. This teaching is *clearly *laid out in the teachings of the faith… so if you personally disagree, then that’s fine… you don’t HAVE to use it…

I’m not judging people, I’m trying to understand the theology behind the “NFP is okay” mentality. My understanding is not that the definition of procreative is fertile, but open to the possibility of life. Yes, the act itself must be open to life, but what about the heart? In order for the act to truly be procreative, must their hearts not be so as well? The act is not merely physical, but emotional and spiritual! So if the two are opposed, how is that okay?

As I stated in a prior post, I’m working all these things out. Not claiming to know the answers, trying to find them.

I just try to explain Natural Law and how NFP is the only form of contraception that respects Natural Law.

This is an excellent way to state it correctly in all eyes.

… it is a reassurance IMO that NFP is no more fundamentally wrong or bad b/c of this toning down than anything else that has been toned down through the years. Its simply a matter of many people not being properly catechized and those poorly catechized people passing on their information.

This is a very good thought as well. I agree.
nodito;5412869:

I don’t quite understand this analogy. Could you elaborate a little bit?

What I meant was, I want the sex and to be united with my spouse (the milk), but I don’t want a child to result from it at this time (buy the cow). So we’ll only do it when it’s likely to not happen (take the milk at night when you probably won’t get caught by the farmer). But if we do have a child (get caught), I’ll accept it (buy the cow).

Make more sense? It’s probably a bad analogy, but it’s what came to me.

No, the problem with ABC is that it separates

the two aspects, which is not the same as saying that a couple using NFP and a couple using contraception both want to avoid children for the time being. Intention is important, yes, but so are the means.

Thank you, that was very helpful in clearing that up. I would agree that you’re right, I was wrong.

Exactly, and NFP allows you to fast for a week or two weeks time. But just as we wouldn’t go an inordinate amount of time without food, so too are married couples encouraged not to go too long without coming together again.

This makes sense as well.

 

[nodito]

I don’t really think this is a great analogy, but maybe I am just dimwitted. Here is how I would view your “invitation” analogy. I know my brother John works weekdays 5:00PM-1:00 AM, and I like to have a family get together once a month. Using NFP TAC is like scheduling the party for the first Wed of each month, and making sure to send an invitation to John. Using contraception is like having the get togethers on Sunday afternoon and not inviting John. Is there a difference…sure. But there is something fundamentally…lacking… in practicing NFP TAC, which is why my wife and I cannot practice NFP to avoid from the outset of our marriage throughout…without serious reason.

So I ask again, why can I not practice NFP to avoid conception from the start of our marriage without serious reason?

In Contraception: Why Not? Janet Smith offers a similar analogy:

And NFP doesn’t say no to God. You see, NFP respects a woman’s fertility, has no bad social consequences (in fact wonderful ones – there’s almost a non-existent divorce rate among couples using Natural Family Planning) and NFP doesn’t say no to God because God has said, “I want to be there at the fertile time. I made the fertile time for bringing forth new human life. If you engage in the sexual act, I want My option of making new human life. But I gave you a half of a month, three quarters of a month, where you’re infertile and if you want to pursue the bonding power of the sexual act without babies, do it then. I’m asleep. I’m out of town. I don’t expect to be invited at that time. I’m not around. You can’t even make me come. I won’t come. I can’t. I made your body in a certain way.” There’s no saying no to God. NFP couples respect the fertile period as if they’re on sacred ground. You don’t walk there unless you’re prepared for the consequences.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Sex is twofold: unitive and procreative, right? So, we’re married, and we want to be unified through sex, but we don’t want the procreative part. That’s the same thing that’s wrong with ABC! And there are numerous other ways to be unified.

NFP doesn’t separate either aspect of marital relations. Both are entirely present during infertile times as well as fertile times. The procreative aspect is not merely refering to the actual probable/possible conception of a new life. Instead it is speaking of obeying the natural law through our actions. Marital relations is the best method of glorifying God through your marriage. In the marital embrace, the couple, along w/ God, give the image of the Trinity. No other way to be unified can truely compare.

That’s where I would say it sounds logical for the proper thing if a couple has a serious reason to delay having a child, for abstinence to be the answer. Sure, NFP is sacrificial and makes the couple grow and understand their fertility. But abstinence requires just as much knowledge of fertility, and sacrifice, and it could be rightly said a great deal more sacrifice, so if the sacrifice of NFP is something being used to justify it, how much more does it justify abstinence?

Abstinence doesn’t require knowledge of fertility - actually it ignores it and just blankets the couple’s entire life w/ the absence of marital relations. That in & of itself is not necessarily a bad thing - it can be very sacrificial and beneficial. However, in general married couples are called to embrace one another through marital relations. Marital relations are the purest example of self-giving love that we have. That’s generally why the reasons for complete abstinence are SO serious. Its not something to be taken lightly. However, the same premise for NFP goes for complete abstinence - a couple cannot w/o just/serious reasons use either method indefinitely to avoid conception. So I really don’t understand why one is acceptable to you and the other is not.

And also, for some circumstances that people can list as serious (lack of health care, finances, marital problems), it takes 9 months for a child to come into the world, and those things could be fixed within that time, we don’t know. That’s why it seems to me that those who say some couples only choose to use NFP for a month or so, it makes no sense at all.

Nodito gave you a great example of short term use of NFP. I’ve done the same several times after miscarriages. Other couples have had short term uses of NFP for other reasons - job loss, short-term health, etc. Yes, sometimes it appears that w/n 9 months some of these issues could be gone, but as you said yourself - we don’t know. Erring on the side of caution isn’t harmful in & of itself as long as there is prayerful discernment as to the reasons for abstaining during fertile times. Also, the 9 months of pregnancy aren’t without their own complications for some. The added stress of a new pregnancy immediately after a stressful situation (loss of a job, etc) can actually cause miscarriage. What’s the benefit of conceiving only to have the heartbreak & loss of a miscarriage that could have been prevented by a little planning?

How about fasting? We fast from food for a time so that we can concentrate on God. Fasting from sex would/should help a couple concentrate on prayer (scripture refers to that) and to their entire relationship other than the sexual aspect. It would/should bring them closer through whatever difficult situation they find themselves in.

God always provides in all other areas that seem hopeless, so why not this one?

NFP implements fasting from relations at a time when hormonally most men & women are most likely to have the highest desire for one another. So it does bring the couple closer through whatever difficulties they are suffering from at the time. We don’t generally fast for extended periods of time b/c the health of our bodies requires nutrition. The same can be true of the emotional and spiritual health of a couple. Sometimes the unitive aspects of marital relations can help heal emotional and spiritual problems within a marriage. Marital relations signify the Trinity - the couple & God. If looked at properly, marital relations is actually a prayer in & of itself. Nothing is lost from the prayer if the couple are embracing on a non-fertile day vs. a fertile day. Just as Mass is just as meaningful on a Tuesday as it is on a Sunday or Holy Day.