PassingThru:
You never say: “NFP is ensuring as best as knowingly possible that all sex between couples in a given period of time is sterile.” You also never say: “Couple practice NFP with the express intent to enjoy sex with there spouse while ensuring that pregnancy will not result.”
I didn’t say those things because NFP can’t be boiled down to couples trying to enjoy sex while keeping it sterile. My husband and I, for example, have been using NFP for several months to try to
achieve pregnancy. But if you only want to discuss those couples that are trying to avoid pregnancy then sure, couples practice NFP with the express intent to be able to enjoy marital intimacy with their spouse while trying to ensure that pregnancy will not result.
PassingThru:
The previous list…ignor[ed] the reasoning and planning that goes into successful long term planning via NFP. It is accurate, but sorely lacking.
I didn’t go into “motive” in my explanation at all because I had previously granted that couples practicing NFP and couples practicing contraception can have very similar motives and end goals. Both couples seek to avoid pregnancy without completely abstaining from sex. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Neither does the Catholic Church. Because both types of “birth control” have similar aims, I had understood our discussion as one being primarily about means and not intent (or what you’re calling “reasoning and planning”).
PassingThru:
So, if we apply the tried and true “procreative and unitive” it can only broken during an act, but not during a process.
Well, what is a process except a series of acts? And how can a process be evil if the acts that comprise that process are not evil?
PassinThru:
What I fail to see is how the principal of “procreative and unitive” is not violated in the practice of NFP. All I have ever heard is that it only applies to the act, therefore NFP gets a pass. … Please, if possible, avoid explaining how sex is only an individual act, therefore NFP can’t violate this principal. If that is your only logic, just say so up front.
That’s exactly my logic. Each act of intercourse
is an individual act. And the elements you reference are intrinsic to each
act of intercourse, not to a couples’ overall child-rearing plans. I’m sorry if you find me tedious and repetitive, but I’m not sure how else to address this concern.
PassingThru:
I am not a fan of yours as it is, well, awful…Change your analogy to be the diet person knows that every afternoon she tends to get very nauseous, and her digestive system hits high gear and clears itself out.
Hmm, I still like my analogy better.
PassingThru:
If you want to explain how NFP is in keeping with natural law, I would be interested to hear.
Natural law does not mean how things would be in the wild (as if among animals). Natural law is the idea that people and things flourish best when they are treated in accord with their design (their nature). So, for example, birds were designed with wings with which they use to fly. If a bird was intentionally maimed so that it could not fly, the bird would have difficulty thriving. Plants, likewise, were designed to take in sunlight and water. If they are deprived any of these things, they don’t do as well. Humans were also designed a certain way. Our nature is such that when women have intercourse during the fertile period, they may get pregnant. When women have intercourse during their infertile period, they will not get pregnant. This is the nature of a woman’s fertility. To say that NFP is in keeping with natural law is only to say that NFP, unlike contraception, does not violate the nature of woman.
PassingThru:
I have posted before my example of using a “contraption” to kill a person, in comparison to a gun. Even though all of the means of a contraption are morally neutral, in the end no one questions it is every bit as responsible for killing as a gun. Here, I am pointing out that the successful practice of NFP separates procreation from sex. To me, this is indisputable.
I’ve haven’t read your example previously, but it’s interesting. The way it reads now, however, it’s flawed. For one, the means of a contraption are not morally neutral if they are used to kill someone. But I think what you’re trying to argue that NFP and contraception both kill fertility, albeit in different ways. But that’s not true. NFP doesn’t kill a woman’s fertility, it just… watches it.
Can I play with your example a bit? Suppose two CAF members have elderly grandmothers who are really suffering. The grandmothers are terminally ill and in serious pain. Both men truly believe it would be best if their grandmothers were to pass away, so they would no longer suffer. Can we agree that both couples have the same hope?
One man decides to take matters into his own hands. He takes a gun (or a contraption or a knife or whatever) and kills his grandmother in her sleep. The second man decides to wait a couple of weeks to see if the grandmother’s situation improves, and the grandmother dies naturally and goes to heaven. Both men “accomplished” the same goal, right? Except that the means are very different and thus the two choices were fundamentally opposed, even though both men had the same intent. Such it is with fertility. The contracepting couple kills their fertility. They use a gun or a contraption or a knife (pills, condoms, sterilization, whatever). They do something to render them infertile. The NFP couple doesn’t touch their fertility. They just wait and see what happens. And when God renders them naturally infertile, they can be pleased, just as a family member might rejoice when a loved one is finally able to join God in heaven.
You keep me on my toes, PassingThru. God bless.
