NFP and Contraception. Just curious, not attacking the Church

[davidv]

Different, sure. I said rather specifically in my post that I can see how the means are different, and one can conclude that the act of ABC violates any number of principals in order to be deemed as such. What I have not seen is how NFP fails to violate these same principals merely by each act of NFP being morally benign.

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. Can anyone explain how this is wrong without simply relying on the act of ABC being wrong, the act of NFP is neutral, ergo, NFP is fine. It would never work for a second in a trail in my above example, yet here we are expecting different results. I have yet to see any logic as to how we do not apply this very basic logic to NFP.

The difference is

1. Intercourse with a condom or chemical BC - immoral object
2. No intercourse - moral object
3. Intercourse without barriers and chemicals - morally neutral object

In case 1) no circumstance or intent can make the act moral.
In case 2) wrong intentions can turn this into an immoral act - e.g., selfish motives for avoiding pregnancy.
In case 3) the morality of the act will depend on the intention and circumstances.

If you won’t accept the basis of Catholic morality, we have no answer for you.
The morality of an act depends on:

1. the object
2. the intent
3. the circumstance

Not being a logician, you’ll have to put the above into a proper form.

 

[PassingThru]

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.

For the purposes of this discussion, that is what we are talking about. It is assumed without re-stating it every time. Note, I do not have to explain when talking about ABC that I am not talking about taking the pill for medical reasons, using a condom to collect semen for medical purposes, etc etc. We both are aware of what we are talking about. The majority of practiced NFP is based around avoiding pregnancy, which is our scope.

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?

Ummm, lost here. There are all kinds of things where each act is benign and the result is “evil” as you say. Am I missing something?

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.

Maybe we are talking about different things here. When I say “each act of NFP is benign” what I mean is all of the step that go into NFP, not each act of sex. This means, classes, thermometers, mucus, charting, fertility tests, chart reviews, having sex, not having sex, etc. All separate components, or “acts”.

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.

This is cutting to the conclusion. You gave a quick synopsis of “Natural Law”. You even said it is our nature to produce children when we have fertile sex, and not when we have infertile sex. You then state NFP does not violate this. Well, that is nice and all, but it has no logic whatsoever tied to it. Where in natural law does the idea of having hundreds of instances of sex with no offspring get included? Where in natural law is it “natural” to NOT have sex with a fertile woman for years or more on end? I am not saying it is inherently un-natural, but you must clearly see that nothing has been said to establish it as natural.

But that’s not true. NFP doesn’t kill a woman’s fertility, it just… watches it.

Ummm, what? A condom doesn’t kill fertility either. More later…

Can I play with your example a bit?

No

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.

Sigh. You keep making these analogies where the “NFP” person just sits there like a dolt and does nothing. THESE ARE NOT GOOD ANALOGIES! NFP is a precise system that requires lots more than just doing nothing. Its just that all the individual steps, which conclude in having or not having sex, are benign. I can come up with plenty of scenarios where two people achieve the same goal, one uses immoral means, one uses moral means, both achieve a goal. I could do the same for grandma. Just because you gave an example where your means are “sit and do nothing” and then proclaim this is how NFP works, does not make it accurate or encompassing.

Again, nothing you have said explains how entering into an exacting system for the express purpose of having sex while eliminating the chance of children is not separating procreation from unitive. Benign means does not automatically create a benign end. You do understand this, yes?

Oh, and thanks for being a sport. No one has ever answered this question, and I applaud you for sticking around.

 

[PassingThru]

The difference is

1. Intercourse with a condom or chemical BC - immoral object
2. No intercourse - moral object
3. Intercourse without barriers and chemicals - morally neutral object

In case 1) no circumstance or intent can make the act moral.
In case 2) wrong intentions can turn this into an immoral act - e.g., selfish motives for avoiding pregnancy.
In case 3) the morality of the act will depend on the intention and circumstances.

If you won’t accept the basis of Catholic morality, we have no answer for you.
The morality of an act depends on:

1. the object
2. the intent
3. the circumstance

Not being a logician, you’ll have to put the above into a proper form.

I get everything you said. An act of sex/no sex can never violate the “object”. Its either sex or not, which is fine. What I am saying is that the very nature of the program has the intent to separate procreation from sex. This would be Case 2 “Intent” as you laid out. We reject the “object” of ABC for separating procreation from sex. Fine. In NFP, the program separates procreation from sex even though the sex acts are valid. You are right in what you say, it just does not address this problem. I think it is a valid issue, as most people, to include Catholics, can not make this distinction. I am not saying you or the Church are wrong. What I am saying is the reasoning makes little sense, and is quite selective.

 

[njmama]

Thought I’d chime in. I’ve been following this conversation for the past week or so. Davidv is right, as are several others who have posted about the logic of NFP. I can understand, PassingThru, why you might disagree with the teachings the argument is predicated on. However that does not make it a faulty argument as you claim. Can you clarify what you mean by “quite selective” reasoning? Thanks.

Now mind you, I got a B- in college logic so I am no expert! And personally I had some trouble grasping this concept years before I became Catholic until I understood NFP never frustrates a potentially fertile act of sex, whereas all forms of contraception do.

 

[davidv]

I get everything you said. An act of sex/no sex can never violate the “object”. Its either sex or not, which is fine. What I am saying is that the very nature of the program has the intent to separate procreation from sex. This would be Case 2 “Intent” as you laid out. We reject the “object” of ABC for separating procreation from sex. Fine. In NFP, the program separates procreation from sex even though the sex acts are valid. You are right in what you say, it just does not address this problem. I think it is a valid issue, as most people, to include Catholics, can not make this distinction. I am not saying you or the Church are wrong. What I am saying is the reasoning makes little sense, and is quite selective.

One description of the “the program”:
nfpandmore.org:

NFP is a way of following God’s plan for achieving and/or avoiding pregnancy. It consists of ways to achieve or to avoid pregnancy using the physical means that God has built into human nature.

NFP consists of two distinct forms:

Ecological breastfeeding. This is a form of child care that normally spaces babies about two years apart on the average.

Systematic NFP. This is a system that uses a woman’s signs of fertility to determine the fertile and infertile times of her cycle.

Couples seeking to avoid pregnancy practice chaste abstinence during the fertile time of her cycle.

I see several distinct objects in this system

1. Following God’s plan
2. Achieving pregnancy
3. Avoiding pregnancy
4. Ecological breast feeding
5. Measuring signs of fertility
6. Chaste abstinence

Which one(s) are objectively immoral, and why?

 

[micahmike]

And personally I had some trouble grasping this concept years before I became Catholic until I understood NFP never frustrates a potentially fertile act of sex, whereas all forms of contraception do.

It can, however, frustrate a husband and a wife. My wife and I are currently avirtually 100% abstinent because NFP to avoid has a whopping 0% effectivity rate for us. Zero. It has failed every year we’ve used it. We are learned. We read books. We took classes. We shared our charts with Doctors, with teachers. Zero %. It is a very heavy cross, and while we are currently ascenting to Church teaching on the matter, I don’t judge anyone who doesn’t feel they can. Obeying the Church’s teachings on contraception (with a nominally catholic spouse who would be happy if I’d concent to contracepting like so many Priests have advised us to and is not at all interested in taking still more tests and classes) has probably injured my marriage and resulted in my wife and I not being as effective a parenting tandem as we’d otherwise be.

 

[PassingThru]

One description of the “the program”:

I see several distinct objects in this system

1. Following God’s plan
2. Achieving pregnancy
3. Avoiding pregnancy
4. Ecological breast feeding
5. Measuring signs of fertility
6. Chaste abstinence

Which one(s) are objectively immoral, and why?

Well, number 1 is in question as it relates to NFP. Number 3 is in question as it avoids pregnancy for the purposes of this discussion. Number 6 as to why one would avoid sex, and you left out number 7) Engaging in the joys of sex specifically with the intent to avoid children. And that is the big one, as even though the sex act is unaltered, its is the end result of separating sex from procreation. Still has not been addressed. But even if they are all moral (which I take them to be) it *still *doesn’t address my question.

Again, using my crude contraption to commit harm, each “object” of the contraption is objectively moral, to use your terms. How can it be immoral if all of its “objects” are moral? I would propose that we have no trouble answering this question, as it is rather plain. Couples enter into the system of NFP to have sex without children, ie separate procreation from sex. I have not heard this rejected, so I assume we all agree to this. Somehow we are saying this is OK because all the “objects” of NFP are moral. Well, it doesn’t work with any other scenario, so why this one?

 

[davidv]

Well, number 1 is in question as it relates to NFP. Number 3 is in question as it avoids pregnancy for the purposes of this discussion. Number 6 as to why one would avoid sex, and you left out number 7) Engaging in the joys of sex specifically with the intent to avoid children. And that is the big one, as even though the sex act is unaltered, its is the end result of separating sex from procreation. Still has not been addressed. But even if they are all moral (which I take them to be) it *still *doesn’t address my question.

This didn’t anwser my question. Each item on the list can be classified in one of three ways:

1. Objectively moral
2. Objectively immoral
3. Objectively amoral

My answers are:

1. Moral
2. Moral
3. Moral
4. Amoral
5. Amoral
6. Moral

So, if the system of NFP is to be immoral it can only be so because of the intention or circumstances.

Again, using my crude contraption to commit harm, each “object” of the contraption is objectively moral, to use your terms. How can it be immoral if all of its “objects” are moral?

Because of immoral intentions or circumstances.

I would propose that we have no trouble answering this question, as it is rather plain. Couples enter into the system of NFP to have sex without children, ie separate procreation from sex.

Abstaining does not separate sex from procreation.

I have not heard this rejected, so I assume we all agree to this. Somehow we are saying this is OK because all the “objects” of NFP are moral. Well, it doesn’t work with any other scenario, so why this one?

Morality is not determined solely based on the object.

 

[PassingThru]

This didn’t anwser my question. Each item on the list can be classified in one of three ways:

1. Objectively moral
2. Objectively immoral
3. Objectively amoral

My answers are:

1. Moral
2. Moral
3. Moral
4. Amoral
5. Amoral
6. Moral

So, if the system of NFP is to be immoral it can only be so because of the intention or circumstances.

Because of immoral intentions or circumstances.

Abstaining does not separate sex from procreation.

Morality is not determined solely based on the object.

Well, I said in my answer that I assume they are all moral, how is that not answering? And I agree morality is not determined soley by the object.

You said abstaining does not separate sex from procreation. True. Having sex while a woman just “happens” to be infertile is also not separating sex from procreation. True. Again, this is all relating to an instance of having/not having sex. You finished by saying “Morality is not determined solely based on the object.” I have already said a few times that I have no trouble considering all the “objects” of NFP as moral. But you also put in the word “soley”. This means that there are other considerations. Again, I propose that a couple enters into a system of NFP to enjoy sex without procreation. You don’t seem to disagree, but you don’t seem to have an answer as to why this is acceptable, beyond stating that each act of sex/no sex is on its own a moral object. We also seem to agree in other scenarios that moral acts can lead to an immoral end. Using your above language of “intention and circumstance”, it seem apparent that the “intent” of NFP is to remove the chance of procreation, and the circumstance is to ensure all sex is sterile. So even if the “objects” are all moral, how does NFP get a pass on the other two?

 

[PassingThru]

Maybe I am making this more complicated than it needs to be.

If NFP can be considered immoral based on intent, as you mentioned above, this might be the crux of my issue. A couple enters into the system of NFP in order to have sex without the chance of pregnancy. It seems a bit undeniable. If they didn’t want to have sex, they simply wouldn’t, and if they were not trying to remove children from they equation, they wouldn’t bother with NFP to begin with. So, if by definition the intent is to remove procreation yet still enjoy sex, how is this not separating procreation from sex?

 

[davidv]

Well, I said in my answer that I assume they are all moral, how is that not answering? And I agree morality is not determined soley by the object.

You said abstaining does not separate sex from procreation. True. Having sex while a woman just “happens” to be infertile is also not separating sex from procreation. True. Again, this is all relating to an instance of having/not having sex. You finished by saying “Morality is not determined solely based on the object.” I have already said a few times that I have no trouble considering all the “objects” of NFP as moral. But you also put in the word “soley”. This means that there are other considerations. Again, I propose that a couple enters into a system of NFP to enjoy sex without procreation.

Please explain how this happens. You agreed above the abstinance does not separate sex from procreations. What does an NFP couple do that makes their congugal act non-procreative. Note: procreative does not equal fertile.

You don’t seem to disagree, but you don’t seem to have an answer as to why this is acceptable, beyond stating that each act of sex/no sex is on its own a moral object. We also seem to agree in other scenarios that moral acts can lead to an immoral end. Using your above language of “intention and circumstance”, it seem apparent that the “intent” of NFP is to remove the chance of procreation, and the circumstance is to ensure all sex is sterile. So even if the “objects” are all moral, how does NFP get a pass on the other two?

It seems to me you have confused fertility with procreation. They are not the same.

NFP does not get a pass. At worst the actions involved are morally neutral. If the intentions or circumstances are immoral then the actions become immoral.

 

[nodito]

PassingThru:

This is cutting to the conclusion. You gave a quick synopsis of “Natural Law”. You even said it is our nature to produce children when we have fertile sex, and not when we have infertile sex. You then state NFP does not violate this. Well, that is nice and all, but it has no logic whatsoever tied to it. Where in natural law does the idea of having hundreds of instances of sex with no offspring get included? Where in natural law is it “natural” to NOT have sex with a fertile woman for years or more on end?

My logic is sound. I specifically clarified that natural law does NOT mean how things would be in the wild (or in nature, or among irrational animals, or during the pre-industrial period before we knew the intricacies of the woman’s menstrual cycle or whatever), as you seem to be implying when you ask how it is “natural” to not have sex with a fertile woman for years on end (although, to note, the vast majority of NFP practicing couples will not need to abstain near that long). Instead, I defined natural law as the idea that we must treat things in accord with their design/nature. This means, among other things, treating physiological systems the way they were designed and expecting the normal physiological response. When couples practice NFP they can either have sex during the fertile period or during the infertile period. To treat woman in accord with her nature would be to grant that sex during her fertile period can result in children. Thwarting the design of the fertility system by sterilizing woman, for example, would contradict natural law, but choosing not to have sex during the fertile period would not. It is, after all, in woman’s nature to sometimes not have sex during her fertile period. Furthermore, it is in woman’s nature to reason, and women often consider many reasons before deciding whether they want to have sex on any given day (for example, whether they’re particularly tired or turned on, whether their husbands shaved that morning or didn’t, whether they think they might get pregnant, etc).

PassingThru:

Sigh. You keep making these analogies where the “NFP” person just sits there like a dolt and does nothing. THESE ARE NOT GOOD ANALOGIES! NFP is a precise system that requires lots more than just doing nothing.

Okay. Two men, both want grandma dead. In fact, they need to make really sure that grandma is dead so that they don’t prematurely read her will or sell her house. Man number 1 takes a knife and stabs grandma dead. Man number two doesn’t want to just sit there like a dolt and wait for grandma to die. But he also doesn’t want to kill her. Nevertheless, he needs to be very sure that she’s dead before he tries to settle her accounts. So every morning, he systematically wakes up early to trek to the hospital and take grandma’s basal body temperature. He checks her vital signs to see if they are in the normal range. He peers into her eyes to check her pupil dilation. He records all his observations on a chart. At the end of every day, he decides whether he can sell grandma’s house the next day (because she’s dead) or whether she’s still alive and kicking.

The point is, the first man effected the end result that he wanted, taking matters into his own hands. He deliberately ended grandma’s life, even though grandma might otherwise have lived several more weeks. The second man doesn’t influence whether grandma lives or dies at all. Sure, he measures her, and pokes and prods at her, and interprets her vital signs. When grandma passes on naturally, he takes full advantage of the situation, by reading her will and selling her house. He was even hoping and waiting for grandma to die, and the only reason he went to the hospital every day was to check to see if she was dead. But it’s not by his doing that grandma died, just as it’s not by the NFP person’s doing whether they’re fertile or infertile at any given moment.

PassingThru:

Benign means does not automatically create a benign end. You do understand this, yes?

No need to get patronizing. I agree that moral means do not necessarily make an action moral. The intent also matters.

PassingThru:

If NFP can be considered immoral based on intent, as you mentioned above, this might be the crux of my issue. A couple enters into the system of NFP in order to have sex without the chance of pregnancy. It seems a bit undeniable. If they didn’t want to have sex, they simply wouldn’t, and if they were not trying to remove children from they equation, they wouldn’t bother with NFP to begin with. So, if by definition the intent is to remove procreation yet still enjoy sex, how is this not separating procreation from sex?

NFP is immoral based on “intent” when the couple is using it for the wrong reasons (for example, when couples are avoiding children for purely selfish reasons that are not in keeping with Christian generosity and prudence). But just having sex without wanting to get pregnant is not immoral. Having sex when and only when you know you can’t get pregnant is not immoral. The Catholic Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be ordered towards procreation and unity, even when it’s unlikely for procreation to occur. The elements, as I mentioned before, are intrinsic to each act of intercourse. This means that each act of intercourse must be brought to completion (with the man ejaculating inside his wife). It also means that couples can’t alter the act by contracepting. In other words, the couple can’t just kill grandma because they want to sell her house tonight; they have to wait for nature (or God) to take grandma on its own time.

 

[PassingThru]

This means, among other things, treating physiological systems the way they were designed and expecting the normal physiological response.

Well, I guess pregnancy would at some point be a “normal Physiological response” for an otherwise healthy woman of childbearing age.

To treat woman in accord with her nature would be to grant that sex during her fertile period can result in children. Thwarting the design of the fertility system by sterilizing woman, for example, would contradict natural law, but choosing not to have sex during the fertile period would not.

Well, OK, you say it is un-natural to have sex with a condom, but natural to NEVER have sex while fertile. Well, again, I fail to see how this is in accordance with “natural law” when practiced systematically over extended periods of time. I can respect that you think so, but you must see that nothing leads one to conclude that this kind of behavior is somehow automatically in accordance to natural law.

It is, after all, in woman’s nature to sometimes not have sex during her fertile period. Furthermore, it is in woman’s nature to reason, and women often consider many reasons before deciding whether they want to have sex on any given day (for example, whether they’re particularly tired or turned on, whether their husbands shaved that morning or didn’t, whether they think they might get pregnant, etc).

As you said, “sometimes”. You gave some reasons why people would naturally not feel up to sex. The “might get pregnant” part I would absolutely classify elsewhere. And it is not a “sometimes”, it is predetermined on a chart. I understand you view it as just another decision no different than “im sleepy”, but I think that undercuts what that particular decision is or represents.

Okay. Two men, both want grandma dead. In fact, they … signs to see if they are in the normal range. He peers into her eyes to check her pupil dilation. He records all his observations on a chart. At the end of every day, he decides whether he can sell grandma’s house the next day (because she’s dead) or whether she’s still alive and kicking.

The point is, the first man effected the end result that he wanted, taking matters into his own hands. He deliberately ended grandma’s life, even though grandma might otherwise have lived several more weeks. The second man doesn’t influence whether grandma lives or dies at all. Sure, he measures her, and pokes and prods at her, and interprets her vital signs. When grandma passes on naturally, he takes full advantage of the situation, by reading her will and selling her house. He was even hoping and waiting for grandma to die, and the only reason he went to the hospital every day was to check to see if she was dead. But it’s not by his doing that grandma died, just as it’s not by the NFP person’s doing whether they’re fertile or infertile at any given moment.

I really do not want to get into complicated analogies. I still disagree with some basics. Your line of “the first man effected the end result that he wanted, taking matters into his own hands.” Followed by “The second man doesn’t influence whether grandma lives or dies at all.” See, I disagree entirely with your premise. Your second man, according to you, did nothing. That is to say NFP does nothing but observe. But I disagree. If you did nothing, you would have no result, ie, no change in chance of pregnancy. But you have to DO something to effect this outcome. In your analogy, one man kills g-ma, the other doesnt. In both ABC and NFP, the outcome is the same, no children. Your last line kind of skips over the whole point of NFP. Of course we do not control whether a woman is fertile, we control when and why we have sex. In NFP it is decided by when we can have sex without children.

I really don’t want to use analogies on this one, it will never work.

No need to get patronizing. I agree that moral means do not necessarily make an action moral. The intent also matters.

NFP is immoral based on “intent” when the couple is using it for the wrong reasons (for example, when couples are avoiding children for purely selfish reasons that are not in keeping with Christian generosity and prudence). But just having sex without wanting to get pregnant is not immoral. Having sex when and only when you know you can’t get pregnant is not immoral. The Catholic Church teaches that each act of intercourse must be ordered towards procreation and unity, even when it’s unlikely for procreation to occur. The elements, as I mentioned before, are intrinsic to each act of intercourse. This means that each act of intercourse must be brought to completion (with the man ejaculating inside his wife). It also means that couples can’t alter the act by contracepting.

So, I think that is it then. Intent is important, but only in an individual instance of sex. It is important that procreation be kept in the moment of sex, but not in a couples sex life.

I think it is quite odd that the Church keeps this morality of “unitive and procreative” only in the act of sex. It is such a strange concept to limit it in such a way. I don’t think we can come to an acceptable answer, because as best I can figure, it doesnt matter to the Church, and there is no answer attempted. Again, meaning many of these principals only apply to the act of sex.

 

[davidv]

Well, I guess pregnancy would at some point be a “normal Physiological response” for an otherwise healthy woman of childbearing age.

Well, OK, you say it is un-natural to have sex with a condom, but natural to NEVER have sex while fertile. Well, again, I fail to see how this is in accordance with “natural law” when practiced systematically over extended periods of time. I can respect that you think so, but you must see that nothing leads one to conclude that this kind of behavior is somehow automatically in accordance to natural law.

As you said, “sometimes”. You gave some reasons why people would naturally not feel up to sex. The “might get pregnant” part I would absolutely classify elsewhere. And it is not a “sometimes”, it is predetermined on a chart. I understand you view it as just another decision no different than “im sleepy”, but I think that undercuts what that particular decision is or represents.

I really do not want to get into complicated analogies. I still disagree with some basics. Your line of “the first man effected the end result that he wanted, taking matters into his own hands.” Followed by “The second man doesn’t influence whether grandma lives or dies at all.” See, I disagree entirely with your premise. Your second man, according to you, did nothing. That is to say NFP does nothing but observe. But I disagree. If you did nothing, you would have no result, ie, no change in chance of pregnancy. But you have to DO something to effect this outcome. In your analogy, one man kills g-ma, the other doesnt. In both ABC and NFP, the outcome is the same, no children. Your last line kind of skips over the whole point of NFP. Of course we do not control whether a woman is fertile, we control when and why we have sex. In NFP it is decided by when we can have sex without children.

I really don’t want to use analogies on this one, it will never work.

So, I think that is it then. Intent is important, but only in an individual instance of sex. It is important that procreation be kept in the moment of sex, but not in a couples sex life.

I think it is quite odd that the Church keeps this morality of “unitive and procreative” only in the act of sex. It is such a strange concept to limit it in such a way. I don’t think we can come to an acceptable answer, because as best I can figure, it doesnt matter to the Church, and there is no answer attempted. Again, meaning many of these principals only apply to the act of sex.

I don’t understand this response. Many have attempted to answer your question. But rather than asking questions of clarification we get rebuttal without evidence.

 

[PassingThru]

I don’t understand this response. Many have attempted to answer your question. But rather than asking questions of clarification we get rebuttal without evidence.

OK, maybe someone else can try and clarify for me. I am trying to be as clear as I can. Ill try to be more clear, with specific questions.

The intent of NFP is to have sex with no children. I don’t know how I can provide “evidence” on this one, as it seems to be rather obvious. I see this as separating procreation from intercourse. Even if each act of sex is unaltered, how is this not true?

If the answer is as I have come to understand it, all the Church means by this is each act must be unaltered to fulfill this requirement. I am starting to think my roadblock is that I apply this beyond an individual act. I can not image that the Church would limit this ideal, or morality, to only the act, but that appears to be the answer. It would appear that this may be a stumbling block for many.

I think a lot of the logic given is under this assumption that these rules of morality are being limited to acts only, in an effort to separate ABC from NFP. I have no disagreements with the ways in which ABC violates these moral ideals, I simply fail to understand how they only apply to a more narrow definition to focus on sexual acts.

I don’t know if that help or makes it worse…

 

[davidv]

OK, maybe someone else can try and clarify for me. I am trying to be as clear as I can. Ill try to be more clear, with specific questions.

The intent of NFP is to have sex with no children.

False. This is not the intent of NFP. The intent of NFP is to plan the number and spacing of children in accordance with God’s plan for the couple. Any conclusion based on your false premise above is invalid.

I don’t know how I can provide “evidence” on this one, as it seems to be rather obvious.?

It is apparately not very obvious as you have misunderstood the intent of NFP.

I see this as separating procreation from intercourse. Even if each act of sex is unaltered, how is this not true

This is an invalid conclusion base on a false premise. NFP preserves the integrity of the conjugal act.

If the answer is as I have come to understand it, all the Church means by this is each act must be unaltered to fulfill this requirement. I am starting to think my roadblock is that I apply this beyond an individual act. I can not image that the Church would limit this ideal, or morality, to only the act, but that appears to be the answer. It would appear that this may be a stumbling block for many.

I think a lot of the logic given is under this assumption that these rules of morality are being limited to acts only, in an effort to separate ABC from NFP. I have no disagreements with the ways in which ABC violates these moral ideals, I simply fail to understand how they only apply to a more narrow definition to focus on sexual acts.

I don’t know if that help or makes it worse…

Morality applies to acts not subjects. These acts may be actions, inactions or thoughts.

It helps as it clearly demostrates your lack of understanding of what NFP really is and how Catholics determine the morality of an activity.

 

[PassingThru]

False. This is not the intent of NFP. The intent of NFP is to plan the number and spacing of children in accordance with God’s plan for the couple. Any conclusion based on your false premise above is invalid.

I guess that would explain why we talk past each other then, eh?

I see what you are saying. I think it just re-enforces my disconnect. It means that it is OK to want to have sex with a spouse without the possibility of children being the goal. It is just part of the “plan” so to speak. The key would be to accomplish this goal with moral means, which NFP is. What I said is not wrong, it is just part of a larger picture. I mean, you are not proposing that having sex without a child resulting is not part of NFP, are you?

 

[PassingThru]

By the way…

It helps as it clearly demostrates your lack of understanding of what NFP really is and how Catholics determine the morality of an activity.

…bahhh-ZING! Nice one!

 

[davidv]

I guess that would explain why we talk past each other then, eh?

I see what you are saying. I think it just re-enforces my disconnect. It means that it is OK to want to have sex with a spouse without the possibility of children being the goal.

There is always a possibility of a child resulting from sex during infertile times. Again this is a misrepresentation of NFP.

It is just part of the “plan” so to speak. The key would be to accomplish this goal with moral means, which NFP is. What I said is not wrong, it is just part of a larger picture. I mean, you are not proposing that having sex without a child resulting is not part of NFP, are you?

No. Why does this make NFP equal to ABC?
Please consider all aspects that determine the morality of an activity

1. Object
2. Intent
3. Circumstance

 

[PassingThru]

There is always a possibility of a child resulting from sex during infertile times. Again this is a misrepresentation of NFP.

Now, I understand that the efficacy of NFP has nothing to do with its acceptance or rejection. Regardless, I said it is the goal. How is that a misrepresentation of NFP? If you do not want to have a child, yet you want to have sex, you use NFP. This is the advice given by any Catholic to another Catholic couple. What about this is wrong? I am not saying that is all there is to NFP, but, it is still accurate. Why are you fighting this? If a couple approaches a priest and asks how they can get a solid 4 year break as they are overwhelmed with kids, he will recommend NFP. Why bother with NFP? So they can still have sex. How is that a misrepresentation?

No. Why does this make NFP equal to ABC?

It doesn’t. All I said was that the goal (intent?) of the practice of NFP is to have sex without worrying about children.

Please consider all aspects that determine the morality of an activity

1. Object
2. Intent
3. Circumstance

OK, simple question. Can the practice of NFP be considered an “act” or an “activity” on an individual level? Meaning, all the steps, processes, sexual acts (non-acts) be considered as one item to be analyzed by the above criteria? Or is that a not viable?