NFP and contraception

[jilly4ski]

I am well aware of this. However, I still do not understand how something can be ordered to procreation if it is objectively not procreative (i.e., “to conceive,” “beget,” etc.) in the first place. Clarity is needed, otherwise you get exactly what is occurring in this thread…people’s opinion’s trying to fill in the gray areas.

Well lets try an analogy shall we. You can agree that milk/cheese/yogurt and other dairy products (ie lactose) are nutritious. And yet some individuals cannot digest lactose.
So, objectively lactose is nutritious, but subjectively some people might not be able to get nutrition from lactose.

Thus, the marital embrace without contraceptives is objectively procreative (or ordered towards procreation), but subjectively some individuals cannot actually procreate.

See in this analogy nutritious describes the food, just like procreative describes the act, neither describe whether or not the individual can actually derive nutrition or procreate.

 

[Warrior1979]

Well lets try an analogy shall we.

You picked a good one.

You can agree that milk/cheese/yogurt and other dairy products (ie lactose) are nutritious.

I agree that dairy products have nutritional elements that can be used by the body, but not necessarily lactose…

And yet some individuals cannot digest lactose.

And for good reason. The function of dairy products is not human nutrition. The function is to provide the young of a species with nutrition, not the adults of other species. Hence the reason for the reaction to lactose. Certain cultures have become more tolerant of it over time, notably northern Europeans and those in the Americas. However, even with the tolerance, you find a prevalence of certain types of diseases in these countries that are prevalent in countries that either don’t use or minimally use dairy products (e.g., MS).

The proper analogy is to compare lactose to contraceptives, since lactose is not intended for human consumption.

Thus, the marital embrace without contraceptives is objectively procreative (or ordered towards procreation), but subjectively some individuals cannot actually procreate.

If anyone hasn’t gotten it by now, I am not going to be convinced that something that can’t procreate can be ordered to procreation…it’s word games and spin. I brought up the infertile couple just for that reason. It points out what I (and many others) think is, at minimum, a lack of clarity on the issue.

 

[Chrono13]

That’s a simple to answer…the Church says no contraception. If the couple is 80 years old, the husband was born without the ability to create sperm, the wife had her ovaries removed due to cancer, and the husband contracted AIDS via a blood transfusion, still no contraception is permitted.

I guess they would conclude so, even tough it would have little sense.

I know we’re supposed to be obedient to the Church, but I’ll admit I have trouble accepting certain things, such as the above.

Majority of Catholics feel that way.

 

[jilly4ski]

If anyone hasn’t gotten it by now, I am not going to be convinced that something that can’t procreate can be ordered to procreation…it’s word games and spin. I brought up the infertile couple just for that reason. It points out what I (and many others) think is, at minimum, a lack of clarity on the issue.

(Well I was going to use tape worms, food is nutritious, but if you have a tape worm that person does not derive nutrition from the food).

But how can food be categorically nutritious, but a person not derive any nutrition from the food.

This is the same distinction between procreative and procreation. The act can be ordered towards procreation without procreation happening. (Think of a fertile couple trying to have a baby, but they did not achieve that particular month). Their act was procreative even if they failed to achieve. But since procreative describes the act, the act of a couple which achieves, fertile but fail to achieves, or infertile, the act is the same.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I agree that dairy products have nutritional elements that can be used by the body, but not necessarily lactose…
… lactose is not intended for human consumption.

If anyone hasn’t gotten it by now, I am not going to be convinced that something that can’t procreate can be ordered to procreation…it’s word games and spin. I brought up the infertile couple just for that reason. It points out what I (and many others) think is, at minimum, a lack of clarity on the issue.

FYI, human breast milk contains more lactose than cow’s milk.

Some babies cannot tolerate their own mother’s breast milk and some mother’s are unable to breastfeed for their babies for a variety of reasons, but none of those situations change the fact that God designed lactation for nourishment. Likewise, the fact that some couples cannot become pregnant does not change the fact that God designed the sexual union for reproduction.

I get that you think this is just a word game, but it’s really not. What we call the “reproductive act” does not always result in a baby. By doing nothing to alter the sexual act, that keeps the sexual act itself oriented towards reproduction. NFP is difficult at times. Couples who use NFP usually ask them during those difficult times if they really have good reason for avoiding it. Sometimes, on the spur of the moment, they engage in the reproductive act and–viola–they reproduce! And nine months later, the woman might even lactate and produce lactose.

 

[Warrior1979]

The act can be ordered towards procreation without procreation happening. (Think of a fertile couple trying to have a baby, but they did not achieve that particular month). Their act was procreative even if they failed to achieve. But since procreative describes the act, the act of a couple which achieves, fertile but fail to achieves, or infertile, the act is the same.

The fertile couple that doesn’t conceive is a different situation than the infertile couple that cannot conceive. The former can order the act toward procreation because they have the ability to procreate; the latter cannot order the act toward procreation because they cannot procreate.

Can they order it toward the way God intended it? Sure. And stopping there solves the issue.

Can it be order toward procreation if they cannot procreate? Of course not. Throwing this issue under the banner of procreation creates the issue.

 

[MaryAnne77]

I’m not asking this just to be contrary -

I hear all the time that NFP is “just as effective” as condoms when used correctly and consistently. People that question its efficacy are often told that it’s an extremely reliable way to prevent conception. So, it doesn’t sound too much like it’s any more open to life than other forms of contraception.

I have thought so much about this, and I really cannot see a difference with two modes of contraception that are equally effective and non-abortive and which are used with the same goal in mind. I get that that church has come up with the idea that all ejaculate must end up in a vagina in order to differentiate between NFP and condoms but I really have to wonder if God cares where ejaculate ends up, or if that’s something Church Fathers invented in order to increase the Catholic population and keep women in the home.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I’m sure there are other threads that answer your specific question, so a search might be in order. The short answer, though, is that sex is to be 100% self-gift, including the gift of potential fertility, and that means that each act of sex needs to be properly ordered that way.

A condom says, I want your body, but I don’t want your fertility, so I’m blocking that.

A couple using NFP to avoid says I want all of you, but since we’ve decided together that a baby is not the next best thing, we will have sex when we think it’s very unlikely we could conceive, plus and this is a big deal I am willing to discipline my appetites and abstain while you are fertile.

As someone who was coerced into contracepted marital sex because he wanted sex but not the natural consequences of it (and I had to deal with my body being used this way, without even being able to get a baby out of the deal), this is really easy for my to see and understand. I think that some of the lack of really comprehending the idea of NFP is because many folks are blessed enough never to have experienced what it is that the Church wishes to protect us from by insisting that contraception is not acceptable.

 

[Lucky10279]

NFP is natural unlike the others.
However, it may NOT be used to prevent children without a good reason, such as the parents would be unable to care for the child(ren). Hope this helps.
Mikayla

 

[MaryAnne77]

NFP is natural unlike the others.
However, it may NOT be used to prevent children without a good reason, such as the parents would be unable to care for the child(ren). Hope this helps.
Mikayla

It’s naturally to take your basal body temperature and chart and use ovulation tests? I don’t really see how this is any more “natural” than a condom. Even if it is - your statement implies that natural is better than unnatural, which we all know is not always true. I’ll take “unnatural” dentistry any day of the week over “natural” dentistry!

Who decides what a “good” reason is for preventing conception? Isn’t that subjective? What if I just don’t want to be pregnant again? What if I want to move on to the next phase of my life rather than reinvent the wheel every 2 years? Am I obligated to continue to become pregnant and bear children if I don’t have a “good” reason to stop? What if I just don’t want to get fat again?

 

[davidv]

It’s naturally to take your basal body temperature and chart and use ovulation tests? I don’t really see how this is any more “natural” than a condom. Even if it is - your statement implies that natural is better than unnatural, which we all know is not always true. I’ll take “unnatural” dentistry any day of the week over “natural” dentistry!

The naturalness, or unnaturalness, is immaterial in judging the morality of NFP.

Who decides what a “good” reason is for preventing conception?

The couple decides bases on objective and subjective criteria with the main objective to love God.

Isn’t that subjective?

Yes and no.

What if I just don’t want to be pregnant again?

Do you have just reasons for wanting this? What does God want?

What if I want to move on to the next phase of my life rather than reinvent the wheel every 2 years?

What if God wants something different for your life?

Am I obligated to continue to become pregnant and bear children if I don’t have a “good” reason to stop? What if I just don’t want to get fat again?

What makes you think this is what the Church teaches? Weight is gained when being pregnant. Why do you call it “fat”?

 

[samiam1611]

You’ve hit on it right there. That’s exactly where the breakdown in communication occurs on this topic. Those who claim to not understand NFP are either unable or unwilling to understand what the Church means when she says the sex act must be ordered to procreation.

I would phrase it that “ordered to procreation” simply means the act must always be done in a way that would permit the woman to get pregnant if both the man and the woman were fertile. It doesn’t matter if they actually ARE fertile at any particular moment. Either one can be infertile due to some sort of biological defect. She can be in an infertile time in her cycle. She can have had a hysterectomy, or lost her ovaries, or not had them develop properly. She can be post-menopausal. His sperm count can be zero. His testicles can be damaged or not developed properly. None of that is relevant to whether or not the act is procreative. All that matters for the sex act to be procreative is that it’s done in a manner consistent with what it would take to get pregnant if fertility was present. The man must finish inside the woman, and there must be no barrier between the sperm potentially released by the man and any egg potentially present in the woman.

This is a good post. Very good job explaining “ordered to procreation.” What I don’t get is why it has to be that way. A lot of Church teachings are strict, but it’s still obvious why those rules are made. Some seem unnecessarily strict though, and I think this is big one. I mean really, why is it such a big deal that sperm must be released into the vagina? Infertile couples can’t do oral sex or handjobs either right? (unless as part of foreplay) That’s unnecessarily strict. Silly. Stupid. Unfair. Maybe I’m the stupid one since I’ve read so much about all this and still don’t see why the man still have to finish inside the woman even if they’re infertile. I am inclined to think they just made that so that there would be no exceptions to the rule for fertile couples - not bc God thinks it’s actually a sin. I think that rule is made up. Not God’s word. I see NO reason why non-procreative sex acts should be forbidden for infertile couples on the basis of the acts not being ordered towards procreation.

 

[Abu]

MaryAnne77, post #67
I’m not asking this just to be contrary -
I hear all the time that NFP is “just as effective” as condoms when used correctly and consistently. People that question its efficacy are often told that it’s an extremely reliable way to prevent conception. So, it doesn’t sound too much like it’s any more open to life than other forms of contraception.
It’s naturally to take your basal body temperature and chart and use ovulation tests? I don’t really see how this is any more “natural” than a condom.

Since when has using normal medical aids become “unnatural”? Any medical procedure that is not immoral is normal when it aids improved health and well-being.
Yes, the great Mercedes Wilson just featured on several TV shows of “Women of Grace” (EWTN) has taught millions how to effectively apply Natural Birth Regulation – over 99% effective.

God has created us to increase and multiply — through marriage, the sacrament of the New Law.
God has created the woman with fertile/infertile periods, and has NOT commanded that only the fertile periods be used in marriage.

God has given His Church His authority to teach infallibly on faith and morals. His Church teaches infallibly that the primary ends of marriage are procreative and unitive. She teaches that the marital act must always be open to procreation, unless the married couple has serious reasons for spacing or avoiding procreation. This may be achieved virtuously through the use of the infertile periods.

Totally different is the use of the marital act in which a barrier (condom) is placed deliberately by God’s creature to thwart the primary end of procreation ordained by Him.

Clear cut:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
The late Fr Torraco 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].

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco (EWTN) on July 24, 2007: **
There can be no conflict between a well formed and correctly informed conscience and the Church’s Magisterium. A person who does not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception removes him or herself from communion with the Church.

 

[06convert]

This is a good post. Very good job explaining “ordered to procreation.” What I don’t get is why it has to be that way. A lot of Church teachings are strict, but it’s still obvious why those rules are made. Some seem unnecessarily strict though, and I think this is big one. I mean really, why is it such a big deal that sperm must be released into the vagina? Infertile couples can’t do oral sex or handjobs either right? (unless as part of foreplay) That’s unnecessarily strict. Silly. Stupid. Unfair. Maybe I’m the stupid one since I’ve read so much about all this and still don’t see why the man still have to finish inside the woman even if they’re infertile. I am inclined to think they just made that so that there would be no exceptions to the rule for fertile couples - not bc God thinks it’s actually a sin. I think that rule is made up. Not God’s word. I see NO reason why non-procreative sex acts should be forbidden for infertile couples on the basis of the acts not being ordered towards procreation.

It’s more than the procreation though. People try so hard to put the “order of procreation” back into the sexual act, which is great, but it doesn’t go far enough. It’s wrong to take procreation out of the act, but it’s a disservice to say it’s “only about procreation”, because it’s a lot more. It’s about each sexual act being a giving of self to the other, a selfless act, a act that is enjoyable for both people and act that is open to life. A couple may be deemed infertile, but miracles happen.

 

[sulkow82]

I have to admit…I just don’t get it. There are plenty of circumstances where the act is objectively not procreative. Cut-and-dry examples would be 80-year-old couples, a woman with ovaries/uterus removed to cancer, etc. I don’t understand how something can be objective procreative and objective not procreative at the same time.

One way to look at it is “did God create everything involved in the act of procreation?” We can’t add or subtract from it. God did create the fertility cycle, so using this for the purpose of deciding when to partake of the marital act is fine.

OTOH, God did not create the condom, IUD, etc. so they are not permitted. Even tube tying is not permitted. These are all not permitted because they alter the structure and/ or cycle of what God made.

One last argument can be made for NFP (on a side, but related topic). Condoms, etc., at best, won’t identify health concerns/ risks. At worst, they will cause new health risks which did not have to take place (especially with the pill and IUD). With NFP one method is the examination of mucus. If something seems odd about the mucus, this can be a signal to see a doctor. This can help address health concerns under the “early detection is best” logic.

 

[Chrono13]

It should be noted that NFP was known to Church Fathers, and they claimed it was form of contraception.

This was also Church stance up to 19th century.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Do you have a source for that? I’ve never seen it in my reading of the fathers, and google searching is just turning up opinions.

Oh, and I think it was on this thread a few pages back that somebody said they didn’t have contraceptives back in the days of the fathers, but they sure did. Pessaries and herbal preparations abounded, some abortifacient, so when the early Church condemned contraception, they weren’t just talking about withdrawal.

 

[Chrono13]

This from the 19th Century thread:

*After you have said this with great noise and heat, (heretic) I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. *
St. Augustine, “On marriage and lust”

Each and every Church father who shares Augustine’s beliefs about stoic sexuality share the same approach to NFP.

Methods of contraception variedin first centuries. Church fathers mention NFP, withdrawal and potions- and they are all seen as unacceptable.

 

[choose_to_love]

@chrono13

I thought you might be thinking of this. If you look closely, you will see the term “soul should be entangled in flesh” and “forbid marriage”. Augustine is responding to, IIRC, the Manichees, not speaking on all birth regulation. Souls being entangled in the flesh is a gnostic heresy, as opposed to a union of soul and flesh, seen as very good by God, Who becomes part of the created world through His Incarnation. “Forbid marriage” means all marriage, so it can be seen from this brief snippet that Augustine was discussing something very different from licit means of birth regulation.

I will try to find some more on this, as I have seen it deconstructed before here on the forums. I think poster “cfrancis” has posted the refutation of this position before if you have more time to look it up than I do.

 

[vsedriver]

That’s a simple to answer…the Church says no contraception. If the couple is 80 years old, the husband was born without the ability to create sperm, the wife had her ovaries removed due to cancer, and the husband contracted AIDS via a blood transfusion, still no contraception is permitted.

I know we’re supposed to be obedient to the Church, but I’ll admit I have trouble accepting certain things, such as the above.

I don’t know, if the husband truly loves his wife would he willingly risk transmitting HIV to her? Wouldn’t he rather abstain from intercourse to protect his wife? It is possible for people to be affectionate without going all the way.