More NFP

[CuriousInIL]

A completed act of unaltered intercourse is always unitive and procreative. You have separated nothing-- the act is unitive and procreative.

The act is complete and it is as God ordered it. Ordered to procreation.

The act is subjectively infertile, meaning that particular act did not result in conception.

If this were true it would make the analysis much easier but it is not. Do you agree that you overgeneralized with this statement?

She was dead on accurate with her statement. What do you disagree with?

Simply that it is not enough that there is “a completed act of unaltered intercourse” before one can conclude that the act is always unitive and procreative.

One example where there could be “a completed act of unaltered intercourse” that would not be both unitive and procreative is forced completed unaltered intercourse.

In addition, it must be made clear that “unaltered” also prohibits alteration after the act as well as during the act.

Also, I believe, though some may argue to the contrary, that the statement would also need to include a proviso that the intercourse is “normal” marital intercourse, i.e., between a married man and woman (married to each other) before one could conclude it was both unitive and procreative.

There may well be more but I am out of time for the moment.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You want to read this:

Interesting because the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists would disagree with the that fix. The agree that the bcp can prevent implantation, but they say pregnancy starts only after implantation so its not an abortion. They changed the definition of pregnancy in 1965 during a period when they were attempting to legalize the bcp because abortion was illegal at the time. I am afraid that this Prolife Ob/Gyn’s are people who think birth control pill is a good thing, but are against abortion so they either had a bad study or they follow ACOG’s definition of pregnancy. But if you define pregnancy as you should at fertilization, then all ACOG members KNOW that bcp prevents implantation.

Thanks Guys (and everybody)
Even though DailyBread is correct, I do not care about the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists definition. I am not expecting them to even show up for my day of judgment! What I am asking is if the “loss rate from fail implantation is 5(?) per 100 in couples practicing no form of birth control then what is the loss rate in the equal couples practicing birth control via the pill?” I would like data to show it as equal, greater, or lower, that would be vital. My bet is some people have such data, whether it is public or not ?

fix, they would simply collect and later analyze the discharge and categorize the sample source

 

[fix]

Thanks Guys (and everybody)
Even though DailyBread is correct, I do not care about the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists definition. I am not expecting them to even show up for my day of judgment! What I am asking is if the “loss rate from fail implantation is 5(?) per 100 in couples practicing no form of birth control then what is the loss rate in the equal couples practicing birth control via the pill?” I would like data to show it as equal, greater, or lower, that would be vital. My bet is some people have such data, whether it is public or not ?

fix, they would simply collect and later analyze the discharge and categorize the sample source

How does one distinguish which embryo was lost as the result of chemical agents and which was an act of nature?

 

[fix]

Simply that it is not enough that there is “a completed act of unaltered intercourse” before one can conclude that the act is always unitive and procreative.

Why? The act was designed a certain way. It was designed to be unitive and procreative. If the act is unaltered how can the act spontaneously stop being what it was ordained to be?

One example where there could be “a completed act of unaltered intercourse” that would not be both unitive and procreative is forced completed unaltered intercourse.

If the act is forced it is not a marital act. It would be a type of unwanted assault.

In addition, it must be made clear that “unaltered” also prohibits alteration after the act as well as during the act.

Please give an example.

Also, I believe, though some may argue to the contrary, that the statement would also need to include a proviso that the intercourse is “normal” marital intercourse, i.e., between a married man and woman (married to each other) before one could conclude it was both unitive and procreative.

I think that is true. We are talking about marriage.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Why? The act was designed a certain way. It was designed to be unitive and procreative. If the act is unaltered how can the act spontaneously stop being what it was ordained to be?

If the act is forced it is not a marital act. It would be a type of unwanted assault.

Please give an example.

I think that is true. We are talking about marriage.

Marital was not in the quote I commented on. If that is added, that helps a great deal in making the statement more accurate. Also, without getting graphic, “marital” helps because to be it implies what is often referred to as “normal” marital intercourse. I think that “unselfish” may also need to be added in addition to marital for accuracy.

An example of an action after the act that i was thinking of was the so-called morning after pill. As this can occur much later than the act, I think that some would not think of it as an alteration of the act itself. However, I think it would change the nature of the act and later render it not procreative.

By the way, I realize I am being picky; but “always” comments do that to me and this one especially made me think because I think if it were true as written it would actually make certain analyses easier. But, I do think it is an over generalization.

 

[fix]

Marital was not in the quote I commented on. If that is added, that helps a great deal in making the statement more accurate. Also, without getting graphic, “marital” helps because to be it implies what is often referred to as “normal” marital intercourse. I think that “unselfish” may also need to be added in addition to marital for accuracy.

I am sorry but I am a bit confused. The only full sexual act is the martial act. If the act is not altered in any way it is objectively unitive and procreative. Are you thinking in terms of the intent of one spouse while the act is taking place as in some desire would change the objective nature of the act? Like fantasizing about another partner?

An example of an action after the act that i was thinking of was the so-called morning after pill. As this can occur much later than the act, I think that some would not think of it as an alteration of the act itself. However, I think it would change the nature of the act and later render it not procreative.

I see. HV states this:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

By the way, I realize I am being picky; but “always” comments do that to me and this one especially made me think because I think if it were true as written it would actually make certain analyses easier. But, I do think it is an over generalization.

So, the act may not be altered before, during, or after.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

How does one distinguish which embryo was lost as the result of chemical agents and which was an act of nature?

fix

The categories would be the separator, so the analysis would determine whether the egg was raw or fertilized. The record would show which methods were used by the couple as none, pill A, pill B, IUD, etc. After analysis of many samples a clear statistical determination could be made whether “none (BC)” was equal or different than others.

 

[fix]

fix

The categories would be the separator, so the analysis would determine whether the egg was raw or fertilized. The record would show which methods were used by the couple as none, pill A, pill B, IUD, etc. After analysis of many samples a clear statistical determination could be made whether “none (BC)” was equal or different than others.

Huh? Fertilized eggs are lost due to spontaneous abortion. The cause of the spontaneous abortion could be from nature, or from use of the pill.

How can you differentiate that from collecting the discharge?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well first this is going further in detail than I care to discuss but I am under the impression that many women already use hygiene products that “catch” discharges for hygiene reasons. These used products would be tagged, and later analyzed, then entered in to the data base. I think maybe it needed to be said this would be liners collect after active periods not necessarily the other discharge. Also, I am under the impression the loss when it occurs; occurs with in a short time window, but I am not a medical person

 

[CuriousInIL]

I am sorry but I am a bit confused. The only full sexual act is the martial act. If the act is not altered in any way it is objectively unitive and procreative. Are you thinking in terms of the intent of one spouse while the act is taking place as in some desire would change the objective nature of the act? Like fantasizing about another partner?

I see. HV states this:

So, the act may not be altered before, during, or after.

Now you have confused me. What are your (most accurate complete) definitions of “full sexual act” and “the marital act”?

I am (not so) simply commenting that the Quote

A completed act of unaltered intercourse is always unitive and procreative.

was an over-generalization as written but perhaps can be modified to be fully correct (for example if the marital concept, among others, is added).

 

[siamesecat]

I’m not Catholic, but I think I do to some extent grasp this issue. I believe the main point the Church makes is that God designed NFP for this purpose and by using it, you are using God’s system of avoiding pregnancy. When you use your own manmade system, it isn’t the way God designed. Thats how I understand it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

A completed act of unaltered intercourse is always unitive and procreative
and or
A completed act of unaltered intercourse is always unitive and subjectively procreative

I always have a problem with this also. If one knows there is no egg (sterile) as post menopause woman, cycle timing there is no procreation. And for “subjective procreation” well the definition is rather ugly. See in sterile cases the “subjective procreation” is a delusional state. If taken literally it means the couple is not to know of a sterile state, then and only then is the act subjective procreation.

Please clearify

 

[Prometheum_x]

Some thoughts:

Both NFP (assuming it isn’t being used to become pregnant) and ABC accomplish the same thing: they reduce the rate of pregnancy. Is it wrong to reduce the rate of pregnancy?

If it is, then not only would NFP and ABC be wrong, but it would also be wrong for a husband and wife to practice any form of long-term abstinence (for an extended spiritual purpose: see 1 Cor. 7; or because one is away on a mission trip for a long time), as that guarantees a 100% reduction in the pregnancy rate (barring divine intervention). I haven’t seen anyone seriously arguing that, and I certainly wouldn’t argue that, so I will assume that in and of itself, a reduction in the rate of pregnancy is not an evil.

If that particular effect isn’t intrinsically immoral, then we must compare the different causes. Is it immoral for a couple to decide for health reasons to practice permanent abstinence? In this case the reduction of the pregnancy rate isn’t incidental but is the desired effect. Note that this is not NFP but total abstinence. There might be objections to this practice for other reasons, but again I haven’t seen any for the reason that they are trying to avoid pregnancy.

If it is morally permissible for a couple to practice total abstinence for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy in some cases (such as with health issues), then I have demonstrated that an intention to avoid pregnancy isn’t intrinsically evil. A couple could sin in this way, but that would be due to selfishness or some other evil motivation and not the avoidance of pregnancy itself.

Now to reintroduce NFP: Assuming the absence of selfishness, is there anything incompatible with the full meaning of sexual intercourse and a desire to avoid pregnancy? Does that desire – even if it isn’t acted on – harm either its unitive or procreative aspect? Is there a contradiction between the act and the desire? Those are very important questions. To be honest, I cannot answer them, but I would like to present a possible response by way of analogy:

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus prayed, “Father, take this cup from me. But not my will, but yours.” That would seem to indicate that Jesus had some sort of desire to not be crucified, but his desire did not put him in contradiction with the will of the Father.

I think it is possible for a couple to be justified in practicing NFP and abstaining from those days that are the most fertile. Merely desiring or intending to avoid pregnancy isn’t wrong, neither is abstaining to avoid it. There isn’t a contradiction present between the intention and the abstention. The only question that remains in my mind is whether there is a contradiction present between simultaneously occurring desire and sexual intercourse.

If there is a contradiction, then ABC is in the same situation, and we can even more confidently denounce it. Both NFP and ABC have the same desired outcome. Is there any substantial difference between the two? In this debate, it is frequently objected that if ABC is wrong, then NFP isn’t any better because they both have the same intent. However, I hope I have shown how neither the intent nor what is considered a successful outcome are intrinsically immoral. If ABC is wrong and NFP isn’t, it has to be due to a difference in means.

Again assuming an absence of selfishness, there is no aspect of NFP that is wrong (except for the aforementioned possibility of internal contradiction): sexual intercourse isn’t wrong, abstaining isn’t wrong, avoiding pregnancy isn’t wrong. All that NFP does to achieve its goal is combine those three elements with the naturally occurring infertility of a woman. The ABC difference? It adds (usually replaces abstaining) an externally forced infertility to the sexual act.

NFP passively allows the infertility to exist, while remaining at least symbolically fertile. ABC causes the infertility to exist, and there is no symbolism of fertility.

Is that a significant difference?

 

[Prometheum_x]

In regards to symbolism:

Biologically speaking, sexual intercourse is ordered towards reproduction. If occurring under the right circumstances, both unitive and procreative aspects are biologically present: sperm and egg are united and a new human organism is created.

Sex is about fertility, and it is itself a representation of spiritual realities. The ancient pagans understood this – the false god Baal was worshipped in Israel by means of prostitution. Baal was a fertility god, and he was credited with making the land fertile. The worshippers of Baal would lie with the temple prostitutes in an effort to get Baal to imitate them and, so to speak, impregnate the land.

They missed the point, to put it politely. In fact, though they understood that there was a relationship there, they had it all backwards. It is not God who does things that can be compared to sexual things; rather, in sex we do things that can be compared to what God does – or, who God is.

The Father, eternally begetting the Son. The Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. An eternal giving from one Person to the other; in a way, a divine fertility, such that out of the abundance of the Love between the Persons of the Trinity, there was a Creation, and God made man in His image.

And our hearts are to be fertile places: Jesus speaks of the Word of God being sown in fertile soil which yields a great harvest. Moving from analogy to an actual event, the Virgin Mary says “Yes” to God, and as someone has said, the Son of God was conceived first in her heart and then in her womb. It is with good reason that she has been styled the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

And the Son of God comes to the world and pours out his life for his Bride, the Church, and he gives his very self to her in the Eucharist. And we, if our hearts are fertile, receive him in us and eternal fruit is born.

That is what is proclaimed by sex, which makes all of its perversions even more heinous. Even those long past their childbearing years proclaim this message of spiritual fertility. . .

. . .Assuming they do nothing to directly contradict it.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks
But I think you failed to mention the white elephant. Soon it will be each morning as the wife enters the shower she can using technology make a couple of quick measurements and the home computer will track her “fertility”. So now she and her husband decide whether to receive God’s gift(children). They may well agree to be completely childless. They will call it NFP, and in my opinion based on church teachings and church writings it is a violation of their vocation. They will call their embraces unitity. In my opinion they will have followed the rules* and completely subverted god’s plan.

*Of course they have to use certain interpretations of the rules