NFP and contraception

[Warrior1979]

You’re assuming that procreation is only the making of a baby.

That would be because procreation is defined as such. No definition of procreation I’ve seen includes “infertile couples completing a marital act.”

I don’t understand discussions like this…this is simply blatantly obvious common sense.

 

[EvelynEVF]

Sure, it’s totally whacked if you’re going by a Webster’s dictionary definition.

But the Catholic Church believes and teaches that natural infertility, whether temporary or permanent, does not render sex non-procreative if the man and woman are open to life. Because sex does a lot more than just make babies—it’s a reflection/translation of God’s nuptial love for us, a la Theology of the Body.

 

[Chrono13]

You’re assuming that procreation is only the making of a baby. One infertile couple i know does more procreating than many families with ten kids. Being ordered to giving life is much bigger than just biology.

"First, it takes some time for NFP to work. You need a lot of time to recognize symptoms of fertile circle [sic], since every woman is different. This makes it difficult to apply NFP in case of immediate need. For example, if pair becomes jobless, it will take several months before they can rely on NFP.

That’s not actually true. Do you have any real-life experience with NFP? Several months is waaaay off. One complete cycle could be plenty, especially if the couple is checking temps, because then you know for sure when the woman has ovulated, and she will then be infertile at least until her period starts.

If woman never checked her cycle, she might need several of them to learn their habits.

 

[Chrono13]

Sure, it’s totally whacked if you’re going by a Webster’s dictionary definition.

But the Catholic Church believes and teaches that natural infertility, whether temporary or permanent, does not render sex non-procreative if the man and woman are open to life. Because sex does a lot more than just make babies—it’s a reflection/translation of God’s nuptial love for us, a la Theology of the Body.

That is right. Catholic Church teaches that something is procreative if nothing is done to lower the fertility

 

[Holly3278]

I want to learn NFP but I don’t know how.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I am a huge, huge fan of Taking Charge of Your Fertility by Toni Wechsler. She is not Catholic, but she is very respectful. Her book covers every possibility and can get pretty scholarly. Lots of photos and example charts.

Chrono and I seem to disagree here–I think if you read the book or take a class and get solid information, when a woman starts to pay attention to her cycle, it will generally be a great big DUH! to her. That has been my experience and that of my irl friends, even the one with irregular cycles. Like, omigosh, I thought that was a yeast infection, but it turns out it was cervical fluid. Or, wow, these symptoms come right after I ovulate, and I can take calcium/magnesium to help alleviate them. And we all felt some anger that this information had been withheld from us. I had a Christian OB nurse tell me when I got engaged that I needed to be on the Pill because women are like rabbits and can ovulate at any time, without warning. Sooooo not true!

There are some women for whom NFP is no help at all as far as contra/conception goes, because they constantly or never produce fertile-quality mucus, or they have weird temps because of a medical condition (thyriod can do this), or they have a luteal phase defect and will always miscarry without help, but still NFP can provide a really significant amount of information, even on the first cycle. Cervical mucus and position might take a couple of cycles, especially when breastfeeding, because you have to figure out what your baseline is. But is a woman with ovulatory cycles is taking her temperature, she will see when she has ovulated and know she is then “safe” at least until her period.

MyFertilityFriend is a free website that will record temps and symptoms and do the figuring for you. There is a corresponding app for PDAs, which is very handy.

 

[Warrior1979]

Why are you changing the meaning of proceative?

I’m not.

Procreative, with respect to Catholic moral teaching, is not the same as infertile.

I, of course, never stated this. I don’t know why you keep bringing this point up.

Until you make this distinction your are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation and your claim is invalid.

Until you read what I’m saying and not imposing something I am not saying on the conversation you won’t get my point.

Can infertile couples procreate? No.

Cannot infertile couples have procreative marital relations? By definition, absolutely not.

They can simulate, pretend, make-believe the are procreative, but it is absolutely not, by definition, procreative.

 

[Chrono13]

I’m not.

I, of course, never stated this. I don’t know why you keep bringing this point up.

Until you read what I’m saying and not imposing something I am not saying on the conversation you won’t get my point.

Can infertile couples procreate? No.

Cannot infertile couples have procreative marital relations? By definition, absolutely not.

They can simulate, pretend, make-believe the are procreative, but it is absolutely not, by definition, procreative.

An interesting question would be whether infertile pair using condom (for some reason) is making a sin of contraception.

 

[Warrior1979]

But the Catholic Church believes and teaches that natural infertility, whether temporary or permanent, does not render sex non-procreative if the man and woman are open to life. Because sex does a lot more than just make babies—it’s a reflection/translation of God’s nuptial love for us, a la Theology of the Body.

If this is truly the context they place “procreative” in, it is no wonder people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, don’t get it. This would be a distortion of the term “procreative,” since it includes every situation, procreative and non-procreative.

 

[jilly4ski]

If this is truly the context they place “procreative” in, it is no wonder people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, don’t get it. This would be a distortion of the term “procreative,” since it includes every situation, procreative and non-procreative.

You are the one who is confused. Procreation doe not mean procreative.. Procreative is a adjective describing the act itself, not individuals ability to procreate. Here is a dictionary definition if you don’t believe me,

Adj. 1. procreative - “the reproductive potential of a species is its relative capacity to reproduce itself under optimal conditions”;

 

[Warrior1979]

An interesting question would be whether infertile pair using condom (for some reason) is making a sin of contraception.

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.

 

[Warrior1979]

You are the one who is confused. Procreation doe not mean procreative.. Procreative is a adjective describing the act itself, not individuals ability to procreate. Here is a dictionary definition if you don’t believe me,

Adj. 1. procreative - “the reproductive potential of a species is its relative capacity to reproduce itself under optimal conditions”;

Infertile couples are a subset of species, that being a segment that can’t reproduce. As a result, this subset is not procreative.

Anything dealing with “procreation” and its variants is dealing with “beget, conceive,”
etc. Infertile couples cannot do this.

 

[jilly4ski]

Infertile couples are a subset of species, that being a segment that can’t reproduce. As a result, this subset is not procreative.

Anything dealing with “procreation” and its variants is dealing with “beget, conceive,”
etc. Infertile couples cannot do this.

Infertile couples are subset of the species? How is that even possible considering every woman is infertile most of the month? Some infertility is temporary (like pregnancy or after child birth) or can be restored with loss/gain of weight better nutrition, etc. The only permanent infertility would be removal of the sexual organs (menopause is pretty close, but it is not unheard of that older ladies will get pregnant).

Objectively, even a couple that is “infertile” performs the act in a way that it is “procreative” (adj. describing the act not the person) even if they cannot procreate (verb.).
Under optimal conditions (subjective criteria) a couple that engages in the marital act in a procreative manner will procreate, but if conditions are not optimal then even engaging in procreative sex will not lead to procreation.

 

[Warrior1979]

Infertile couples are subset of the species?

Yes.

How is that even possible considering every woman is infertile most of the month? Some infertility is temporary (like pregnancy or after child birth) or can be restored with loss/gain of weight better nutrition, etc.

There is a difference between a woman that can have children and one that can’t. The former can procreate, that latter can’t.

The only permanent infertility would be removal of the sexual organs (menopause is pretty close, but it is not unheard of that older ladies will get pregnant).

There are other reasons, but the fact that infertile people exist is sufficient for the purposes of discussion.

Objectively, even a couple that is “infertile” performs the act in a way that it is “procreative” (adj. describing the act not the person) even if they cannot procreate (verb.).
Under optimal conditions (subjective criteria) a couple that engages in the marital act in a procreative manner will procreate, but if conditions are not optimal then even engaging in procreative sex will not lead to procreation.

It’s simple: They are not procreation nor are they involved in procreative act.

They may be simulating a procreative act, but that has nothing to do with procreation.

It’s no difference than, say, acting as a cop in a movie. The actor may pretend to do everything the cop does, but in no way, shape, or form is a cop.

 

[jilly4ski]

Yes.

It’s simple: They are not procreation nor are they involved in procreative act.

They may be simulating a procreative act, but that has nothing to do with procreation.

It’s no difference than, say, acting as a cop in a movie. The actor may pretend to do everything the cop does, but in no way, shape, or form is a cop.

Sigh, so even though the Church picked a definition (a perfectly reasonable definition) to use when it discusses theology and philosophy, you reject that the Church (or anyone) can define the terms it is using?

And yes there is a very large difference, since natural infertility is just that, natural, we did not make ourselves infertile.

 

[Warrior1979]

Sigh, so even though the Church picked a definition (a perfectly reasonable definition) to use when it discusses theology and philosophy, you reject that the Church (or anyone) can define the terms it is using?

Do you have a Church source that defines procreation to include “the impossibility of begetting and conceiving.” I am interested in reading it.

And yes there is a very large difference, since natural infertility is just that, natural, we did not make ourselves infertile.

Sure there is a difference…and the difference it blatantly obvious. Just as the it is blatantly obvious that infertile couples cannot procreate nor be involved in an procreative act.

 

[EvelynEVF]

It’s no difference than, say, acting as a cop in a movie. The actor may pretend to do everything the cop does, but in no way, shape, or form is a cop.

Wow. Ouch.

I think the Church is very clear that** one can be procreative without being fertile**. Fertile at any given moment or during the longterm, or whatever.

Procreative is not just a biological term; it’s also theological, and as Catholics we can’t separate the two.

Every woman is called to be a mother, and every man is called to be a father. And that may have nothing to do with the state of their gonads. I think of the woman whose Mother’s Day card I am now writing. I have not and will not inquire about particulars, but I know that she has no children. She is not “pretending” or “acting” in her mothering of me, “but in no way, shape, or form is a [mother].” The only way/shape/from that she* isn’t* my mother is the biological.

 

[jilly4ski]

Do you have a Church source that defines procreation to include “the impossibility of begetting and conceiving.” I am interested in reading it.

Well considering they don’t define “procreation” that way no.

However, the Catechism here explains “ordered to procreation” and “procreative” as not procreating but rather it describing the act not the fertility of individuals.

• The fecundity of marriage

CCC 2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

 

[Alindawyl]

Well considering they don’t define “procreation” that way no.

However, the Catechism here explains “ordered to procreation” and “procreative” as not procreating but rather it describing the act not the fertility of individuals.

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.

 

[Warrior1979]

• The fecundity of marriage

CCC 2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

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.