NFP and Contraception once again

[Rau]

As for the argument that contraception deliberately thwarts the marriage act and NFP doesn’t – that is splitting hairs. Making a conscious decision to avoid sex at the times when you are most attracted to each other in order to avoid contraception is in itself a deliberate thwart of the reproductive system – only on a monthly scale instead of a one-time scale.

As for the issue of intent – What about this hypothetical? Say you’re infertile – in which case the church says its fine to still have sex. Now what if you’re GLAD you’re infertile? What if every time you have sex you’re thinking “wow I’m glad I’m infertile so I don’t have to worry about having kids?” Does that intent make the sex a sin? Do you have to be actively hoping for a miracle pregnancy each time to make it alright?

NFP and contraception are like chalk and cheese. If you think it is hair-splitting, give NFP a try and then review your assessment. NFP does not thwart the act - if the act did not happen, and there is no obligation that it should happen to any particular schedule.

There is no need to be hoping for pregnancy each time you have sex. Sex is not exclusively for having children.

 

[Rau]

I am not catholic but seriously considering becoming catholic. One of the big issues I still have with the church is NFP. The church’s teaching on sexual morality seems to have a great logical, natural law foundation but the permissive side of NFP to me significantly weakens these arguments I can understand that the participation in the marital act is sacred because it alone allows humans to participate with God in the creation of life. I also understand that limiting sexual activity to marriage goes hand in hand with the understanding that a critical reason for marriage is for the benefit of children. This then greatly supports the church’s teaching about divorce, homosexual unions, sex outside of marriage etc. with this background I see a great argument against masturbation because you are taking what is supposed to be procreative and making it a selfish act solely for personal pleasure. Similarly the same argument could be made to support the church’s teaching regarding married couples using birth control or homosexual sex. But then to say on the other hand that married couples can have recreational sex in a way that is designed as much as humanly possible to avoid having children (through charting and all the other NFP methods) really cheapens all of these natural law arguments that otherwise support the church’s position on sexual morality as a whole. If the marital act really is sacred and tied to procreation it would be much more defensible from a logical standpoint at least to say that married couples who don’t want children should abstain completely. I agree with others who have pointed out that if sex is critical to a marriage there are likely issues with the marriage. From the outside at least I think the permissive aspect of NFP really detracts from the church’s teachings on sexual morality. Maybe going to the logical conclusion would be too unpopular but at least it would make all of the teachings very supportable from a natural law / reason perspective.

Or you could take the view that couples are periodically infertile by design. God gave us brains and the ability to plan. It is not wrong to use those faculties and to make judgements about our family.

There is nothing wrong with taking sex and babies as it/they come, subject to responsible parenthood.

 

[Abu]

Default #78
The problem I have is intent. If a couple practicing NFP is doing everything in their ability to enjoy the pleasure of sex but avoid the consequences it is hard to justify that on a natural law / reason basis and square it with all of the rest of the church’s teaching.

As amply demonstrated by the late Fr Torraco who was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network, the Church’s teaching is soundly justified on the basis of God’s own design.

God is not, unlike some, against the pleasure of sex which He provided precisely to encourage procreation with infertile periods to enable wise regulation for serious, just and grave reasons.

God requires an answer as to why anyone would question His judgment in giving His Church so much of His authority – “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

 

[jilly4ski]

As for the argument that contraception deliberately thwarts the marriage act and NFP doesn’t – that is splitting hairs. Making a conscious decision to avoid sex at the times when you are most attracted to each other in order to avoid contraception is in itself a deliberate thwart of the reproductive system – only on a monthly scale instead of a one-time scale.

We are humans and God gave us the ability to reason and use logic, we don’t have to mate like animals in heat. Thus if we know we cannot care for another child, we know we should abstain from the marital act. If we can also observe that God made us infertile and fertile and making use of the infertile times (like knowing you are infertile, ie pregnancy, menopause, infertile times of the month) is not and cannot be a sin, since God does not regulate when we must have marital relations. That is why we cannot look at the marital act in a monthly scale versus a one-time scale. The context of the marital act is much bigger than, “being open to children.” The real marital act is a modeling of the marital bond, and a modeling of the love between the 3 persons of the Trinity. If we could look at the reproductive system on a monthly scale (or perhaps yearly scale, if one is pregnant) that would open the door to all sorts of sinful activity that tries to mimic the marital act. Mutual masturbation, masturbation, oral “sex,” anal “sex,” etc. As long as one engaged in the appropriate behaviors during the “right time” of the month. In the Church’s view, these behaviors are not any different than contraceptive sex. The marital act has been distorted until it just becomes mutual masturbation (ie non-procreative sex).

 

[thewanderer]

In case you are still reading OP,

I am talking about a married couple postponing or ceasing procreation after having as many children as they can care for. I am not talking about use of contraception outside of marriage.

I must admit I am a little confused. The Church, and specifically Humanae Vitae, explicitly say that this is perfectly moral as long as moral means, (ie some form of abstinance, whether periodic or complete) are used. The issue here is not postponing or stopping procreation, but rather it is the method used to do so.

The view that sex is only for procreation sounds like objectification. It sounds like couples are viewed only for their usefulness to produce something and emotional needs are ignored.

I know others have already said this, but the Church does not teach that sex is only for procreation.

 

[thewanderer]

I understand the church’s position. My whole point is that the permissive part of NFP does not appear to dovetail with the very nice consistent natural law arguments that can be made to support the rest of the church’s teaching on sexuality. If your point is this is an “all faith, no reason” situation, then so be it. As I mentioned at the outset, I am not catholic but seriously studying the faith and talking to priests about converting. Presumably thinking about the underpinnings of the faith is reasonable instead of simply saying that is what the church teaches, so don’t think about it.

Also, the point about why there is no restriction on infertile period sex in the bible is a bit of a straw man. No one can predict with certainty that having sex precisely at this moment or that moment will result in conception. The problem I have is intent. If a couple practicing NFP is doing everything in their ability to enjoy the pleasure of sex but avoid the consequences it is hard to justify that on a natural law / reason basis and square it with all of the rest of the church’s teaching. On the other hand, if a couple simply doesn’t focus on cycles and has relations when the mood strikes, that seems completely fine even if sometime they are having sex at low fertility times. If their honest intent is that we aren’t going to worry about it, and let God decide then that seems completely fine. One of the great things to me about the Catholic Church is the focus in self mastery and control. If you honestly don’t want another child, can’t afford a child, or whatever the reason is, then in my own mind I have to really question whether God is asking me to also forego the physical gratification of the act and exercise some personal restraint and discipline instead of trying to separate the two.

It sounds to me as though you do not actually fully understand the Church’s take on this, but I guess thats not surprising, it is a very difficult subject to understand. I know that I still have a ways to go on fully understanding it myself, but I’d love to do what I can to help you better understand it if you are interested.

It sounds to me like the issue you have with saying NFP is moral is that you think it is wrong to engage in sexual activity while trying to avoid pregnancy. You don’t see any reason for the Church to distinguish between NFP and ABC as in both cases you engage in sexual intercourse while also intending to avoid conception. Is that an accurate summary of where your confusion comes in?

 

[Vico]

I understand the church’s position. My whole point is that the permissive part of NFP does not appear to dovetail with the very nice consistent natural law arguments that can be made to support the rest of the church’s teaching on sexuality. If your point is this is an “all faith, no reason” situation, then so be it. As I mentioned at the outset, I am not catholic but seriously studying the faith and talking to priests about converting. Presumably thinking about the underpinnings of the faith is reasonable instead of simply saying that is what the church teaches, so don’t think about it.

Also, the point about why there is no restriction on infertile period sex in the bible is a bit of a straw man. No one can predict with certainty that having sex precisely at this moment or that moment will result in conception. The problem I have is intent. If a couple practicing NFP is doing everything in their ability to enjoy the pleasure of sex but avoid the consequences it is hard to justify that on a natural law / reason basis and square it with all of the rest of the church’s teaching. On the other hand, if a couple simply doesn’t focus on cycles and has relations when the mood strikes, that seems completely fine even if sometime they are having sex at low fertility times. If their honest intent is that we aren’t going to worry about it, and let God decide then that seems completely fine. One of the great things to me about the Catholic Church is the focus in self mastery and control. If you honestly don’t want another child, can’t afford a child, or whatever the reason is, then in my own mind I have to really question whether God is asking me to also forego the physical gratification of the act and exercise some personal restraint and discipline instead of trying to separate the two.

Have you read this from Pope Pius XII? It provides some answers to your questions.From Address to Midwives:

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

 

[Default]

Sorry I am posting using a phone and not good at quoting. To reply to the wanderer my issue with NFP is certainly to some extent distinguishing between the morality of NFP and the immorality of birth control, but I think my issue goes a little beyond only that issue. The way I am thinking about it is, there seems to be two conditions that are satisfied by the marital act which are not satisfied by any sexual practice that is sinful. The marital act is the only act which (1) is capable of producing life, and (2) produces life to a married husband and wife. Therefore masturbation is sinful because it does not produce life. Similarly homosexual acts or acts using birth control are not capable of producing life and are also wrong. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage can produce life, but the life resulting from the act would not be born to a married husband and wife and therefore is also wrong. The problem I have with the permissive side of NFP is that the only way it produces life is if the participants make a mistake. Or in other words the affirmative intent of the couple is to engage in the act In a way that is specifically designed to not produce life.

At this point I don’t think I could enter the church and in good conscience practice NFP. I could of course simply have relations with my wife without the charting and planning and leave the result in God’s hands or alternatively I could choose to be abstinent. Either approach I assume is completely valid.

Of course I am always happy to learn and discuss more.

 

[camillebru]

My name is Camille bruno Valdez my partner and I have been trying for a baby for over two years now, We were going to a fertility clinic for about 5 months before somebody told us to contact this spell caster who is so powerful, We contacted him at this email; arewaspecialisttemple@yahoo.com, for him to help us, then we told him our problem, he told us that we will either conceive in February 2014 or March 2014,but after two years of trying we were at a point where we were willing to try anything. And I’m glad we came to Dr Dahiru, Because his pregnancy spell cast put us at ease, and I honestly believe him, and his gods really helped us as well, I am thankful for all he has done. contact him via email: arewaspecialisttemple@yahoo.com if you are trying to get a baby or want your lover back. he has powers to do it, he has done mine

 

[Rau]

Sorry I am posting using a phone and not good at quoting. To reply to the wanderer my issue with NFP is certainly to some extent distinguishing between the morality of NFP and the immorality of birth control, but I think my issue goes a little beyond only that issue. The way I am thinking about it is, there seems to be two conditions that are satisfied by the marital act which are not satisfied by any sexual practice that is sinful. The marital act is the only act which (1) is capable of producing life, and (2) produces life to a married husband and wife. Therefore masturbation is sinful because it does not produce life. Similarly homosexual acts or acts using birth control are not capable of producing life and are also wrong. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage can produce life, but the life resulting from the act would not be born to a married husband and wife and therefore is also wrong. The problem I have with the permissive side of NFP is that the only way it produces life is if the participants make a mistake. Or in other words the affirmative intent of the couple is to engage in the act In a way that is specifically designed to not produce life.

At this point I don’t think I could enter the church and in good conscience practice NFP. I could of course simply have relations with my wife without the charting and planning and leave the result in God’s hands or alternatively I could choose to be abstinent. Either approach I assume is completely valid.

Of course I am always happy to learn and discuss more.

Will you feel obliged to cease sex post menopause?

Will you feel obliged to decline sex at times when your wife just happens to know the state of her cycle, eg at the commencement of menstruation when conception is also not possible.

 

[Abu]

Default #87
The problem I have with the permissive side of NFP is that the only way it produces life is if the participants make a mistake. Or in other words the affirmative intent of the couple is to engage in the act In a way that is specifically designed to not produce life.

They engage in an act, when sufficiently grave, serious reasons are present, totally in conformity with God’s design.

The first error in the assumption is that God did not know what He was doing when He created women with infertile periods – specifically designed (even if some are difficult to identify due to fallen human nature).

The second problem with the assumption is precisely that it places another above the wisdom of Christ when He established His Church to teach faith and morals without error.

She teaches through Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 16:
“The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

“But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”

 

[Default]

The easier answer as to menopause is yes. In order to be consistent I would be required to abstain post menopause.

As to the second point I guess on days where my wife is extremely certain she is not fertile then yes I would have to abstain then as well. In this pre-menopause situation however I would have to ask myself what is my honest intent. As long as my honest desire is to combine the physical gratification from the act with the honest desire to conceive that seems ok. I am not suggesting that I would have to use the fertility aspect of NFP and only have sex on the days where the percentage is believed to be greatest. For me in my own life I guess it boils down to I should only have sex if I have the honest desire also to conceive.

I know this is more restrictive than the church’s requirements, but presumably that is ok if I apply it to myself. I assume it is ok if I either engage in (1) total abstinence or (2) sex without any game planning to avoid conception.

 

[Vico]

Sorry I am posting using a phone and not good at quoting. To reply to the wanderer my issue with NFP is certainly to some extent distinguishing between the morality of NFP and the immorality of birth control, but I think my issue goes a little beyond only that issue. The way I am thinking about it is, there seems to be two conditions that are satisfied by the marital act which are not satisfied by any sexual practice that is sinful. The marital act is the only act which (1) is capable of producing life, and (2) produces life to a married husband and wife. Therefore masturbation is sinful because it does not produce life. Similarly homosexual acts or acts using birth control are not capable of producing life and are also wrong. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage can produce life, but the life resulting from the act would not be born to a married husband and wife and therefore is also wrong. The problem I have with the permissive side of NFP is that the only way it produces life is if the participants make a mistake. Or in other words the affirmative intent of the couple is to engage in the act In a way that is specifically designed to not produce life.

At this point I don’t think I could enter the church and in good conscience practice NFP. I could of course simply have relations with my wife without the charting and planning and leave the result in God’s hands or alternatively I could choose to be abstinent. Either approach I assume is completely valid.

Of course I am always happy to learn and discuss more.

It’s not actually that it produces life, but rather the act is apt for generation, with no requirement that there be fertility, and that the intention is that if children result they will be accepted and raised in the faith. The canon law does not use the terms unitive and creative. Based upon the canon lawCan. 1061 §1*.* A valid marriage between the baptized is called* ratum tantum* if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
the conjugal act must have two properties: (1) it must be voluntarily done in a human fashion (“humano modo”) and
(2) it must be a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh (“actum per se aptum ad prolis generationem, ad quem natura sua ordinatur matrimonium, et quo coniuges fiunt una caro”).
It can be said that (a) it is not wrong to abstain from conjugal relations when mutually agreed on because there is no denial to grant the conjugal rights when asked for (when charitable and just), but (b) it is wrong to commit the marital act itself when corrupted.

 

[FLCathMom]

but presumably that is ok if I apply it to myself. I assume it is ok if I either engage in (1) total abstinence or (2) sex without any game planning to avoid conception.

I don’t know, but it may be ok if it is also acceptable to your wife. You have a positive duty to give yourself to her. 1 Corinthians 7:5 says, “Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

 

[Rau]

The easier answer as to menopause is yes. In order to be consistent I would be required to abstain post menopause.

As to the second point I guess on days where my wife is extremely certain she is not fertile then yes I would have to abstain then as well. In this pre-menopause situation however I would have to ask myself what is my honest intent. As long as my honest desire is to combine the physical gratification from the act with the honest desire to conceive that seems ok. I am not suggesting that I would have to use the fertility aspect of NFP and only have sex on the days where the percentage is believed to be greatest. For me in my own life I guess it boils down to I should only have sex if I have the honest desire also to conceive.

I know this is more restrictive than the church’s requirements, but presumably that is ok if I apply it to myself. I assume it is ok if I either engage in (1) total abstinence or (2) sex without any game planning to avoid conception.

You are crafting your own moral code. If your wife agrees to the same code, then I imagine that is fine. Should the number of children you have unduly stress you capacity, you may need to adopt total abstinence from a rather early age. I assume you anticipate that will be manageable. Does you experience in remaining chaste to date support that view?

Your notions shoild be cross-checked with any potential wives before committing to marriage. BTW have you met anyone else who takes the same view on these matters as you do?

 

[Default]

Thanks to all of the replies. This is very helpful. In my situation the likelihood based on the past several years of experience is that if I don’t bring up the topic of sex it won’t come up. I assume that there is no affirmative duty on my part to cajole or otherwise persuade my wife to have sex. In that case, would anyone see a problem with abstinence? It doesn’t seem like I am doing any “withholding”.

 

[Rau]

Thanks to all of the replies. This is very helpful. In my situation the likelihood based on the past several years of experience is that if I don’t bring up the topic of sex it won’t come up. I assume that there is no affirmative duty on my part to cajole or otherwise persuade my wife to have sex. In that case, would anyone see a problem with abstinence? It doesn’t seem like I am doing any “withholding”.

You can’t just remain silent unless your wife is on-board. You must communicate about you intentions before you marry, and then as appropriate after. You must not, by silence, deceive.

 

[kaos713]

One can’t be for NFP and against condoms.

In both cases, humans have observed how their bodies work, and are working around that in order to have sex for pleasure while minimising the chance of having a baby.

Adding anything else to the argument is missing the point.

 

[Default]

The only person I know who may take a somewhat similar view would possibly be my mother. I was raised very strict Calvinist Presbyterian. As such we did not have any discussions about sex overtly but the clear indication she gave was sex is a necessary evil. I am not exaggerating about that point in the least. My view is certainly not that extreme. I view marital sex as a positive but at this point I am not comfortable with the concept of sex for pure pleasure divorced from an honest and genuine openness to procreation.

I am not young and we already have children so abstinence wouldn’t be a huge burden. It wouldn’t really impact my life much at all based on the past several years of my marriage. I won’t say that I am sin free in this regard but I will say I have made very good strides in the area in the past couple years. I am not catholic at this point but trying to live as close as I can to catholic teaching. Of course I don’t have the benefit of the sacraments and interestingly enough I am pretty sure I was never even baptized so there are pretty big limitations.

 

[Rau]

One can’t be for NFP and against condoms.

In both cases, humans have observed how their bodies work, and are working around that in order to have sex for pleasure while minimising the chance of having a baby.

Adding anything else to the argument is missing the point.

That’s an assertion, not an argument.