Natural Family Planning... "Just Reasons?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bonarges
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LJN21 said:
Burden of proof is on you, just because you THINK they would disapprove does mean anything. The fact of the matter is it is STATED that was his intention.

usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/seriousq.shtml

ignatius.com/Magazines/HPRweb/storck.htm

I’m going to venture a guess that your interpretation has been influenced by a certain SSPX documents like this one sspx.org/against_sound_bites/rhythm_unhappy_compromise.htm and this one sspx.org/against_sound_bites/marital_love_and_fidelity.htm Notice either of those give dates or many quotes. Just little snippets pulled out of context and their own commentary.
Click to expand...
Your reading of his words is also open to interpretation. If by exercising the act you are doing so purposefully because you KNOW that you will be able to avoid having children then you are subverting the primary reason for marraige.

He didn’t say withdrawl either so is that alright as well. It is not artifical. You are splitting hairs and not seeing the actual purpose for his words.
 
Moon - after reading some of your older posts on marital sexuality I wanted to add a point that may not be fully understood:

The concept of “being open to life” or having sex be “procreative” means the marital act must be done in a way that could beget life… meaning that the husband must finish inside the wife.
In other words… even an infertile couple can have “procreative” sex… even a wife who is already pregnant can have “procreative” sex… even a couple who is beyond their fertile years can have “procreative” sex.
Procreative sex does not always need to end in conception, otherwise we’d be forced to ONLY have sex during a woman’s fertile time!

HTH a little…
 
Em_in_FL said:
Moon - after reading some of your older posts on marital sexuality I wanted to add a point that may not be fully understood:

The concept of “being open to life” or having sex be “procreative” means the marital act must be done in a way that could beget life… meaning that the husband must finish inside the wife.
In other words… even an infertile couple can have “procreative” sex… even a wife who is already pregnant can have “procreative” sex… even a couple who is beyond their fertile years can have “procreative” sex.
Procreative sex does not always need to end in conception, otherwise we’d be forced to ONLY have sex during a woman’s fertile time!

HTH a little…
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you just stated. Where we differ is when couples purposefully avoid having sex at a predetermined time for the sole purpose of avoiding or reducing the possibility of conceiving a child.

All of the situations you stated, I fully agree with as they do not frustrate the primary goal of marraige. The couple is not doing anything intentially to avoid having children.
 
moon1234 said:
If you asking for a period of rest then you should not artifically create it. God will discern that for you if you trust him.

What will your answer be to God, if he should ask, at your judgement:

“Why did you not want to accept the children I had intended to send you? Did you not trust that I had a plan for you and would care for you?”
Click to expand...
Do not tempted the Lord thy God.

Should walk out in front of a buss cause “God will take care of you”?
 
moon1234 said:
I agree with everything you just stated. Where we differ is when couples purposefully avoid having sex at a predetermined time for the sole purpose of avoiding or reducing the possibility of conceiving a child.

All of the situations you stated, I fully agree with as they do not frustrate the primary goal of marraige. The couple is not doing anything intentially to avoid having children.
Click to expand...
Your logic makes no sense.

If a woman is infertile by nature - and can have procreative sex EVERY time they unite, then why can’t a woman who is cyclically infertile prayerfully chose with her husband to have recourse to those infertile periods in order to space children. 🤷
NFP does NOT frustrate God’s creation!
 
LJN21 said:
Do not tempted the Lord thy God.

Should walk out in front of a buss cause “God will take care of you”?
Click to expand...
Bad example. The better one would be, should I never try anythign new becuase God might not take care of me.
 
Em_in_FL said:
Your logic makes no sense.

If a woman is infertile by nature - and can have procreative sex EVERY time they unite, then why can’t a woman who is cyclically infertile prayerfully chose with her husband to have recourse to those infertile periods in order to space children. 🤷
NFP does NOT frustrate God’s creation!
Click to expand...
Because your primary goal is to AVOID having children. If you nurse your children and you continue to have sex whenever both you decide, then you are not frustrating the possibility of getting pregnant. You took no deliberate action to lessen the possibility of you conceiving a child.

If you deliberatly exclude certain days of the month to avoid having a child then on THOSE days you are being closed to the possibility of life. You are then having sex purposefully on days when you KNOW you will be less likely to have a child. If you have wierd swings in your cycle and just have sex whenever without worry if this day or that may be more fertile, then you are open to life whenever it may come.

If you are such a woman and use examination of mucus, discharge, moisture, etc. and tell your husband, not today I am fertile, then you deliberatly frustrate the primary purpose of marraige.
 
He didn’t say withdrawl either so is that alright as well. It is not artifical.
Click to expand...
He didn’t have to say it was wrong - the bible did! Read about Onan’s sin in the OT. Onan’s sin wasn’t just that he didn’t want his dead brother’s wife to have kids like the law proscribed, it was that he didn’t finish the act of intercourse properly.

As Emily posted, procreative sex means being open & performing sex like God intended. Not that every act of intercourse must be able to create life. As Emily posted, that would mean no one could have sex when they were pregnant, after menopause, after surgical sterilization for medical purposes, etc. That’s just not true.

Contraceptive sex means sex that is not receptive to conception. Procreative sex means sex that is receptive to conception. Its the receptive portion that differentiates the 2. NFP by its nature (when practiced according to the Church) is ALWAYS receptive to conception, even when conception is NOT possible. Therefore, NFP sex is always going to be procreative b/c there is no artificial barrier (physical or chemical) to conception.

BTW I added the caveat “when practiced according to the Church” b/c there are some methods of NFP and some users of NFP who apply artificial means as a ‘back-up’. Some of these methods allow for sex during the fertile period as long as a condom (or some other contraceptive) is used. These are obviously illicit and not following the true nature of NFP. I hazard a guess to say that most of the people you judge to be contraceptively minded in their use of NFP have used contraceptives while using NFP. Those who are not allowing for God’s plan, or have little Faith in God, are the ones who incorrectly use NFP. However, when they add the contraceptive use into the NFP use, they are no longer using NFP - they are using contraception. NFP requires Faith in God just as much as randomly having sex when you want children. Actually, completely (not just during fertile periods) abstaining from sex until children are desired is a form of NFP. Its most likely much less common and more difficult to practice, but it IS possible and it IS acceptable.
 
moon1234 said:
Your reading of his words is also open to interpretation. If by exercising the act you are doing so purposefully because you KNOW that you will be able to avoid having children then you are subverting the primary reason for marraige

He didn’t say withdrawl either so is that alright as well. It is not artifical. You are splitting hairs and not seeing the actual purpose for his words.
Click to expand...
Withdrawal is a DELBRATELY frustrating the act. Why is that so hard for you to seem, NFP to avoid is does nothing to the act its self. Pills, condoms and withdrawal all actively interfere with your bodies natural fertility. NFP does none of the above.
 
moon1234 said:
Because your primary goal is to AVOID having children. If you nurse your children and you continue to have sex whenever both you decide, then you are not frustrating the possibility of getting pregnant. You took no deliberate action to lessen the possibility of you conceiving a child.

If you deliberatly exclude certain days of the month to avoid having a child then on THOSE days you are being closed to the possibility of life. You are then having sex purposefully on days when you KNOW you will be less likely to have a child. If you have wierd swings in your cycle and just have sex whenever without worry if this day or that may be more fertile, then you are open to life whenever it may come.

If you are such a woman and use examination of mucus, discharge, moisture, etc. and tell your husband, not today I am fertile, then you deliberatly frustrate the primary purpose of marraige.
Click to expand...
I’m just glad I have the Church to lean on rather than your opinion. :rolleyes:
2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, 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” is intrinsically evil:159
Click to expand...
Code: 
    Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
Click to expand...
 
moon1234 said:
Bad example. The better one would be, should I never try anything new becuase God might not take care of me.
Click to expand...
No its not. You completely trivialize the responsibility you have to your current kids. If having another Child makes it very hard to take care of your children emotionally, financial or physical should you have more kids?
moon1234 said:
Because your primary goal is to AVOID having children. If you nurse your children and you continue to have sex whenever both you decide, then you are not frustrating the possibility of getting pregnant. You took no deliberate action to lessen the possibility of you conceiving a child.

If you deliberatly exclude certain days of the month to avoid having a child then on THOSE days you are being closed to the possibility of life. You are then having sex purposefully on days when you KNOW you will be less likely to have a child. If you have wierd swings in your cycle and just have sex whenever without worry if this day or that may be more fertile, then you are open to life whenever it may come.

If you are such a woman and use examination of mucus, discharge, moisture, etc. and tell your husband, not today I am fertile, then you deliberatly frustrate the primary purpose of marraige.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but this is a total cave. “Its okay to nurse avoid having more children because that is natural; but using infertile days is WRONG because your delebrately frustrate the primary purpose of marriage .”

So in your view then is charting immoral?
 
If you are such a woman and use examination of mucus, discharge, moisture, etc. and tell your husband, not today I am fertile, then you deliberatly frustrate the primary purpose of marraige.
Click to expand...
I think what you’re forgetting is that NFP is NOT 100%. Nothing but complete abstinence is 100% at preventing pregnancy. If I tell my husband today I’m not fertile, but tomorrow (or later that night) my mucus changes - we are/were open to new life b/c we performed the act according to God’s laws. **Scientifically/biologically speaking sperm cells can live in the reproductive tract of the woman for at least 2 days. ** That right there indicates that all NFP couples put their Faith in God to help them avoid (or acheive) pregnancy. It is God’s will whether those sperm cells live that long. Neither man nor woman can kill them or make them live longer. Therefore, they are open to new life, but they aren’t necessarily making it easier.

Also another key factor you keep forgetting is that MOST NFP couples do not avoid pregnancy for long periods of time. Most frequently couples use NFP to acheive pregnancy and/or to space children. That means that eventually all NFP couples are likely to try to acheive pregnancy. Very few (if any) couples will only avoid for their entire relationship.

Again, like I said, you’re focusing on the negative instead of the multitudes of positives of the NFP mind-set. You’re projecting your negative attitude toward family planning on those who use NFP. Even a woman who uses breastfeeding as a means of avoiding pregnancy is DOING something to prevent her fertility from returning. Does that make nursing wrong as well? That’s planning/spacing children for her own benefit. God designed our bodies to be infertile during nursing to reduce the wear & tear on our bodies. He also designed our bodies to be infertile at particular times in the month to reduce wear & tear on our bodies. **Its one & the same thing. ** If one is wrong, so is the other.
 
BiologyBrain said:
I think what you’re forgetting is that NFP is NOT 100%. Nothing but complete abstinence is 100% at preventing pregnancy. If I tell my husband today I’m not fertile, but tomorrow (or later that night) my mucus changes - we are/were open to new life b/c we performed the act according to God’s laws. **Scientifically/biologically speaking sperm cells can live in the reproductive tract of the woman for at least 2 days. ** That right there indicates that all NFP couples put their Faith in God to help them avoid (or acheive) pregnancy. It is God’s will whether those sperm cells live that long. Neither man nor woman can kill them or make them live longer. Therefore, they are open to new life, but they aren’t necessarily making it easier.

Also another key factor you keep forgetting is that MOST NFP couples do not avoid pregnancy for long periods of time. Most frequently couples use NFP to achieve pregnancy and/or to space children. That means that eventually all NFP couples are likely to try to acheive pregnancy. Very few (if any) couples will only avoid for their entire relationship.

Again, like I said, you’re focusing on the negative instead of the multitudes of positives of the NFP mind-set. You’re projecting your negative attitude toward family planning on those who use NFP. Even a woman who uses breastfeeding as a means of avoiding pregnancy is DOING something to prevent her fertility from returning. Does that make nursing wrong as well?
Click to expand...
I think that’s some what beside the point. It doesn’t matter if it was 100% effective. Its not the ends that are the issue contrary to what Mr. Moon here thinks but the means we arrive at it. He can scream yell and judge us all to hell for being selfish for if we use NFP to space our children but fortunately the Church herself has upheld it as licit and always has. Using rhythm or NFP doesn’t become less moral just because its MORE effective than artificial means.

That’s the problem with his whole argument, he’s to focused on the ends to understand its the means that matter.
 
LJN21 said:
No its not. You completely trivialize the responsibility you have to your current kids. If having another Child makes it very hard to take care of your children emotionally, financial or physical should you have more kids?

I’m sorry but this is a total cave. “Its okay to nurse avoid having more children because that is natural; but using infertile days is WRONG because your delebrately frustrate the primary purpose of marriage .”

So in your view then is charting immoral?
Click to expand...
If you were to use nursing intentionally to avoid pregnancy then yes it would be sinful. Since you are are using nursing to feed your child and the side effect is you do not get pregnant then it is acceptable. This is because you are not deliberatly trying to avoid or reduce your chance of getting pregnant.

Just like the abortion example. If you are pregnant and have cancer of the uturus, then a hysterectomy would be licit because you were not doing it to kill the child, but to save the life of the mother. The death of the child is a side effect and not the primary goal of the surgery.

Charting is fine as long as you are not using the knowledge from the charting to avoid having children. On the contrary if you are trying to conceive a child the knowledge you gain would be used to for the primary purpose of your marraige. This is a very good example of how NFP can be used.
 
LJN21 said:
I think that’s some what beside the point. It doesn’t matter if it was 100% effective. Its not the ends that are the issue contrary to what Mr. Moon here thinks but the means we arrive at it. He can scream yell and judge us all to hell for being selfish for if we use NFP to space our children but fortunately the Church herself has upheld it as licit and always has. Using rhythm or NFP doesn’t become less moral just because its MORE effective than artificial means.

That’s the problem with his whole argument, he’s to focused on the ends to understand its the means that matter.
Click to expand...
This is not true.
 
Oh boy. Granted, I do see the difference between NFP and ABC, but I do see both sides of the argument here.

I think the crux of moon’s point is this: For those of you who are using NFP, what happens if God wants to create a child on a day you chose to abstain?
 
It is just as effective as using a condom. I could not sleep at night knowing I kept such company.
Click to expand...
So now you’re grouping those who use NFP w/ PP? :eek: That’s just ridiculous. :mad: PP also mentions abstinence on their website as being 100% effective at avoiding pregnancy & STDs, so does that mean we should abstain at all ever? Oh, by the way, thanks for making me & the thousands of other women who use NFP responsibly & for their health in the same category as those who abort their children. :mad::eek::mad:

I cannot believe you would rather group all NFP into the bad apple bin, than just acknowledge that **NFP uses God’s plan, while contraception does not. ** So are you or aren’t you completely against NFP? I thought you’d mentioned that I had good (grave/serious) reasons to use NFP & therefore I’m allowed. However, if my reasons were simply financial or my personal desire, I wouldn’t be allowed. Unlike contraception, which is always evil, NFP is **never **evil. No matter how you look at it, nursing is NFP. To some the side-effect is nourishing the child (especially beyond a certain age), but the primary intention is to avoid pregnancy for a while longer.

I think we’ve conceded that it can be abused, but with much difficulty & even then usually contraceptive means come into play as well. However, you’re actually indicating that all NFP to avoid pregnancy is wrong and contraceptive minded. I’m glad the Church does not agree w/ you. Even Pius X doesn’t necessarily agree w/ you. Thank God for that!
 
baylee said:
Oh boy. Granted, I do see the difference between NFP and ABC, but I do see both sides of the argument here.

I think the crux of moon’s point is this: For those of you who are using NFP, what happens if God wants to create a child on a day you chose to abstain?
Click to expand...
Exactly. You frustrate his will on those days. You are not REQUIRED to have sex every day, but when you do decide the possibility of conception should not enter into the decision to have sex or not.

If your both very tired or worn out, no one says you MUST have sex. I just put forth that you should not avoid sex solely because you don’t want to be open to the possibility you may conceive.
 
For those of you who are using NFP, what happens if God wants to create a child on a day you chose to abstain?
Click to expand...
Then God can easily will it to occur - the day(s) b/4 or the day(s) after. Biologically speaking it is possible for this to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top