More NFP

[billpenn]

The only teaching of the Church that I seem to stumble over and can’t “get my head around” is NFP vs. barrier methods of ABC.

Now, my wife and I do not use ABC, and after she gives birth we will use NFP. Even though I cannot really understand the teaching, I am accepting it and living by it. Kind of like Peter not really grasping Jesus’ statement that they must eat and drink His flesh and blood - he just accepts it and says, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)

Here’s where I get tripped up:

Consider a married woman who must have a hysterectomy because she has cervical cancer. Post-hysterectomy, every act of intercourse is unitive only - there is no possibility of conception. Should she be having intercourse with her husband, given that the procreative and unitive aspects of the act have now been separated?

I see two ways to answer the question:

1. no, because sex must be both unitive and procreative, and these two aspects must not be separated.

or

1. yes, because even though there is no possibility of procreation, they did NOT CHOOSE to separate the two aspects of sex - this separation was forced on them via necessary surgery to preserve the wife’s life. Same would apply if the husband were sterile.

The inverse of #2 is CHOOSING to separate the procreative and unitive aspects…this is what becomes sinful…I get lost in how deliberately attempting to avoid conception by having sex during infertile times is any different than avoiding contraception by barrier methods (not talking about abortifacients here).

One could say that NFP allows for conception to occur even when intercourse is had solely during infertile times because it is not foolproof and if the will of God is so, conception will happen…but the same could be said when using a condom or a diaphragm, since they are not foolproof either.

Let’s pretend for a moment that NFP was 100% foolproof - practice it and there is absolutely no possibility of conceiving…does it now become sinful to practice it because there is no chance of procreation?

When I boil all of this down, I am left with two methods of separating the unitive from the procreative - both by free choice…with one being a permitted practice by the Church, the other not.

 

[1ke]

NFP and contraception (including barrier methods) are both methods of birth control. Birth control is the spacing & planning of children, and the Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control. Big difference.

Each marriage act (act of sexual intercourse) must be unaltered before, during, or after the act. No action may taken to alter the act because each act must be *objectively *unitive and procreative in order to be authentic and properly ordered as God designed. Objectively procreative means ordered to procreation (completed act of vaginal intercourse).

Subjectively that particular act may or may not be procreative. For example, if someone is naturally infertile due to time of the month, post-menopause, already pregnant, or due to defect/disease of the generative organs (in your example hysterectomy), then an unaltered act of intercourse is objectively procreative but subjectively does not result in conception.

How does NFP meet this criteria? In NFP each marital act is objectively unitive and procreative. If you have reason to avoid pregnancy you do not engage in the act. That respects the objective elements that must be present in every act.

How does contraception fail to meet this criteria? When contracepting a couple engages in the marital act while simultaneously altering the act to nullify it’s procreative element-- either before, during, or after the act.

NFP says: Don’t want to become pregnant at that time? Abstain and respect the act as God created it because we and the act serve God. Engage in the act when the woman is naturally infertile and never alter the act.

Contraception says: Don’t want to become pregnant? Have sex and mutilate the act because the act serves us.

NFP is not an alterative to contraception, it’s an alternative to complete abstinence.

For more, go to www.omsoul.com and pick up some of their resources, especially the Contraception Why Not CD by Janet Smith.

 

[Atreyu]

The only teaching of the Church that I seem to stumble over and can’t “get my head around” is NFP vs. barrier methods of ABC.

Now, my wife and I do not use ABC, and after she gives birth we will use NFP. Even though I cannot really understand the teaching, I am accepting it and living by it. Kind of like Peter not really grasping Jesus’ statement that they must eat and drink His flesh and blood - he just accepts it and says, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)

Here’s where I get tripped up:

Consider a married woman who must have a hysterectomy because she has cervical cancer. Post-hysterectomy, every act of intercourse is unitive only - there is no possibility of conception. Should she be having intercourse with her husband, given that the procreative and unitive aspects of the act have now been separated?

I see two ways to answer the question:

1. no, because sex must be both unitive and procreative, and these two aspects must not be separated.

or

1. yes, because even though there is no possibility of procreation, they did NOT CHOOSE to separate the two aspects of sex - this separation was forced on them via necessary surgery to preserve the wife’s life. Same would apply if the husband were sterile.

#2 is correct.

One could say that NFP allows for conception to occur even when intercourse is had solely during infertile times because it is not foolproof and if the will of God is so, conception will happen…but the same could be said when using a condom or a diaphragm, since they are not foolproof either.

The difference between ABC and NFP is completely and utterly to do with the means by which no child is conceived. It is not sinful to not have sex; that is morally neutral. It is sinful to have sex while deliberately frustrating any chances of conception. This act itself is intrinsically wrong.

Let’s pretend for a moment that NFP was 100% foolproof - practice it and there is absolutely no possibility of conceiving…does it now become sinful to practice it because there is no chance of procreation?

Possibly. If the couple does not have just cause to separate their children or to not conceive, then this could become sinful. In practising NFP, one must have a just cause to do so.

When I boil all of this down, I am left with two methods of separating the unitive from the procreative - both by free choice…with one being a permitted practice by the Church, the other not.

The difference is within the means you use. It is never ever OK to do something that is intrinsically wrong in order to bring about a good.

 

[billpenn]

The difference between ABC and NFP is completely and utterly to do with the means by which no child is conceived. It is not sinful to not have sex; that is morally neutral. It is sinful to have sex while deliberately frustrating any chances of conception. This act itself is intrinsically wrong.

Isn’t having sex during a known time of infertility, with the intent of preventing procreation - thereby separating it from the unitive aspect - the same thing???

 

[1ke]

Isn’t having sex during a known time of infertility, with the intent of preventing procreation - thereby separating it from the unitive aspect - the same thing???

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.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I get lost in how deliberately attempting to avoid conception by having sex during infertile times is any different than avoiding contraception by barrier methods (not talking about abortifacients here).ce it because there is no chance of procreation

The difference is not having sex with your wife verses having sex with latex. The latex barrier is later discarded in the trash. (Diaphrams last for more uses, but they make their way to the trash can too. I’ve thrown away a couple of my own.) Barriers are like having sex with a piece of trash, verses NFP which is carefully timed sex with your spouse. Huge difference.

…does it now become sinful to practice it because there is no chance of procreation?

Effectiveness aside, Church teachings don’t give free reign on using NFP. Couples need just (or grave or serious, depending on Latin traslation) reasons for avoiding pregnancy to use NFP licitly. Without just reasons, it is a venial sin to use NFP. Because of the difficulty inherant in abstaining for no good reason, couples tend to evaluate their use of NFP often.

 

[LittleDeb]

Effectiveness aside, Church teachings don’t give free reign on using NFP. Couples need just (or grave or serious, depending on Latin traslation) reasons for avoiding pregnancy to use NFP licitly. Without just reasons, it is a venial sin to use NFP. Because of the difficulty inherant in abstaining for no good reason, couples tend to evaluate their use of NFP often.

I totally agree with you here but I do want to clarify something for the OP. “Using” NFP is never a sin. It is constant use of the infertile periods that might be a sin.

Many people, and I think this might include the OP, confuse the knowledge that comes from NFP with the action of the marital act. (I know that you understand it correctly Gardens. Your many blessings show that! But again I just want to clarify for those who might be reading.) It is never sinful to know when one is fertile/infertile. Never. Not for teens, unmarried, or consecrated celibates so of course it is not sinful for a married couple to know their mutual fertility. Men always know when they are fertile because they are always fertile! (Health exceptions aside.)

The only thing sinful is what might be done with that information. A married couple can sin by using the knowledge of NFP to be closed to God’s will for children. A single person could use the knowledge of fertility to fornicate while avoiding pregnancy. These sins are separate from the neutral means of the knowledge that comes from NFP.

Thanks Gardens, for a good chance to clarify something that can get very confusing. But, I don’t know if I clarified it more or just muddied the waters.

 

[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?

 

[Ruthie]

One thing that nobody has mentioned is that NFP is also used to **increase **one’s chances to concieve. (That’s why it’s called Family Planning!) No ABC can do that.

One method, using the natural cycles of our God-given, God-designed bodies, that can be used both to avoid an ill-timed pregnancy, and to cause a desired pregnancy… what could be better? No latex, no increased risk of breast cancer and blood clots, and no denial of procreation.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… Effectiveness aside, Church teachings don’t give free reign on using NFP. Couples need just (or grave or serious, depending on Latin traslation) reasons for avoiding pregnancy to use NFP licitly. Without just reasons, it is a venial sin to use NFP. Because of the difficulty inherant in abstaining for no good reason, couples tend to evaluate their use of NFP often.

I totally agree with you here but I do want to clarify something for the OP. “Using” NFP is never a sin. It is constant use of the infertile periods that might be a sin…just muddied the waters.

:clapping: :clapping: Thank You, very much :clapping: :clapping:

 

[LittleDeb]

:clapping: :clapping: Thank You, very much :clapping: :clapping:

So does this mean that you understand that the knowledge that comes from NFP must be used diligently and with serious reason? Or does this mean that my clarification further muddied the waters and have confused you further?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So does this mean that you understand that the knowledge that comes from NFP must be used diligently and with serious reason? Or does this mean that my clarification further muddied the waters and have confused you further?

It means Catholic teachings on a person’s “intent” and “will” are valid even when birth control is the subject, and it was stated by others for which I am thankful.

 

[billpenn]

I’ve been thinking about this a little more, and here’s what I’ve come up with:

Semen contains sperm, and the only function of sperm is to fertilize the egg. It does this by traveling through the vagina and ultimately into the fallopian tubes. It can only carry-out its only intended purpose if deposited in the vagina…therefore, deposition in the vagina is its “proper end.” Sperm weren’t intended to fertilize eggs AND perhaps go bowling or enjoy sushi…they fertilize eggs, period.

If we choose to have sperm end up in a condom, or choose to frustrate its intended journey to the fallopian tubes by using some other barrier method (e.g., diaphragm), or by spermicides for example, we are acting contrary to the will of God in that He ordained sperm to:

1. fertilize eggs which
2. can only be done if sperm are deposited in the vagina, and
3. this requires that sperm enter into the fallopian tubes (for this is where the egg is fertilized).

Whether or not the sperm can actually fertilize an egg is dependent upon the woman’s fertility or infertility at that time (I am here assuming that the man is not sterile) - being at an infertile point in her cycle is not of deliberate choosing, it is part of the natural cycle, and therefore having intercourse at that time is not sinful because the infertility is not deliberate (deliberation comes in to the picture when deciding to procreate or not). Naturally, anything that prevents the release of the egg or the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus (which is abortion) is contrary to this and therefore illicit. So that addresses point 1.

Point 2: we must not do anything that causes sperm to be deposited anywhere but the vagina (e.g., condom, outside of the vagina), and

Point 3: must not frustrate it’s journey into the fallopian tubes by any method.

SORRY that this is SOOO long, I was kind of on a roll.

Does this all make sense? I think I’ve got it figured out…have I?

THANKS to all those who have posted here.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’ve been thinking about this a little more, and here’s what I’ve come up with:

Semen contains sperm, and the only function of sperm is to fertilize the egg. It does this by traveling through the vagina and ultimately into the fallopian tubes. It can only carry-out its only intended purpose if deposited in the vagina…therefore, deposition in the vagina is its “proper end.” Sperm weren’t intended to fertilize eggs AND perhaps go bowling or enjoy sushi…they fertilize eggs, period.

If we choose to have sperm end up in a condom, or choose to frustrate its intended journey to the fallopian tubes by using some other barrier method (e.g., diaphragm), or by spermicides for example, we are acting contrary to the will of God in that He ordained sperm to:

1. fertilize eggs which
2. can only be done if sperm are deposited in the vagina, and
3. this requires that sperm enter into the fallopian tubes (for this is where the egg is fertilized).

Whether or not the sperm can actually fertilize an egg is dependent upon the woman’s fertility or infertility at that time (I am here assuming that the man is not sterile) - being at an infertile point in her cycle is not of deliberate choosing, it is part of the natural cycle, and therefore having intercourse at that time is not sinful because the infertility is not deliberate (deliberation comes in to the picture when deciding to procreate or not). Naturally, anything that prevents the release of the egg or the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus (which is abortion) is contrary to this and therefore illicit. So that addresses point 1.

Point 2: we must not do anything that causes sperm to be deposited anywhere but the vagina (e.g., condom, outside of the vagina), and

Point 3: must not frustrate it’s journey into the fallopian tubes by any method.

SORRY that this is SOOO long, I was kind of on a roll.

Does this all make sense? I think I’ve got it figured out…have I?

THANKS to all those who have posted here.

Yes

Additionally if anyone knows about the medical side of this question, I read fertilized eggs failing to implant occurs naturally, thus -How is natural egg loss separated from when or if birth control pills contribute to egg loss?

 

[Charybdis]

Roofer, the answer is in your own question! Natural is natural, not a thing we can do about it. We had no part in causing the egg not to implant.

BUT, if you are using ABC (meaning the pill or other chemical that can cause a fertilized egg not to implant) then you have directly altered the natural course.

BIG difference!!!

 

[fix]

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?

 

[fix]

Yes

Additionally if anyone knows about the medical side of this question, I read fertilized eggs failing to implant occurs naturally, thus -How is natural egg loss separated from when or if birth control pills contribute to egg loss?

You want to read this:

…“Most (virtually all) literature dealing with hormonal contraception ascribes a three-fold action to these agents. 1. inhibition of ovulation, 2. inhibition of sperm transport, and 3. production of a “hostile endometrium”, which presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby if the first two mechanisms fail. The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third proposed mechanism, IF it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient.” (editor’s addition) What is the precise language appearing in the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) with regard to these agents? …

…The authors repeatedly state that no scientific proof has appeared in the medical literature demonstrating that the pill is abortifacient. They are correct. The reason is that such proof would require collecting, fixing, staining, and serially sectioning all vaginal contents from mid-cycle through menstruation and demonstrating the presence of an early embryo. No one has the time, money or motivation for such an undertaking. In addition, would such a study be morally permissible? We think not. Attempting to prove that any mechanism causes the death of an innocent human individual is an assault on the fifth commandment…

aaplog.org/collition.htm

 

[LittleDeb]

I’ve been thinking about this a little more, and here’s what I’ve come up with:

Semen contains sperm, and the only function of sperm is to fertilize the egg. It does this by traveling through the vagina and ultimately into the fallopian tubes. It can only carry-out its only intended purpose if deposited in the vagina…therefore, deposition in the vagina is its “proper end.” Sperm weren’t intended to fertilize eggs AND perhaps go bowling or enjoy sushi…they fertilize eggs, period.

If we choose to have sperm end up in a condom, or choose to frustrate its intended journey to the fallopian tubes by using some other barrier method (e.g., diaphragm), or by spermicides for example, we are acting contrary to the will of God in that He ordained sperm to:

1. fertilize eggs which
2. can only be done if sperm are deposited in the vagina, and
3. this requires that sperm enter into the fallopian tubes (for this is where the egg is fertilized).

Whether or not the sperm can actually fertilize an egg is dependent upon the woman’s fertility or infertility at that time (I am here assuming that the man is not sterile) - being at an infertile point in her cycle is not of deliberate choosing, it is part of the natural cycle, and therefore having intercourse at that time is not sinful because the infertility is not deliberate (deliberation comes in to the picture when deciding to procreate or not). Naturally, anything that prevents the release of the egg or the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus (which is abortion) is contrary to this and therefore illicit. So that addresses point 1.

Point 2: we must not do anything that causes sperm to be deposited anywhere but the vagina (e.g., condom, outside of the vagina), and

Point 3: must not frustrate it’s journey into the fallopian tubes by any method.

SORRY that this is SOOO long, I was kind of on a roll.

Does this all make sense? I think I’ve got it figured out…have I?

THANKS to all those who have posted here.

:yup: There have been many discussions on the purpose of sperm. “Not going bowling” is my favorite by far! Futher even if a man is in infertile he still does have semen. The purpose of semen has not changed just because the sperm is absent. It’s purpose is to transport sperm. Overall you got it! This is a very good summation. Good job! I hope it helps you to explain it to others.

 

[DailyBread]

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.

 

[DailyBread]

ethicalhealthcare.org/articles/larimore_birth_control.pdf

Please read starting at around page three for medical evidence. Whoever wrote your piece is flying in the face of the FDA and other groups who readily admit that bcp makes the environment of the endometrium hostile to implantation and the status of the endometrium is directly linked to chances of implantation. Just because one has not found direct evidence showing a blastocyst not implanting does not mean it does not happen. Evidence suggests the contrary. By the way if you are wondering, many things in science are based on indirect evidence.