NFP and contraception

[Debora123]

Until you get the definition of procreation correct, the rest of you argument is moot.

procreate

1. To beget and conceive (offspring).
2. To produce or create; originate.

procreation - the sexual activity of conceiving and bearing offspring

thefreedictionary.com/procreation

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

… and on certain days, which must be planned out ahead of time, with the intent of avoiding having children.

I only mention that because the issue here is the intent to avoid having children while still enjoying sex. No one is talking about abstaining from sex, or the act of having sex during an infertile period in and of itself–only the attempt to use sex for something other than procreation.

By having sex for something other than procreation then:

Does the Church mean that only relations during fertile periods are licit?

Illicit would be:

Sex outside of the fertile period–pregnancy is not likely.
Sex during pregnancy
Sex after menopause
Sex for the infertile.

For your interpretation to be correct—than the above must segue as true.

 

[copperblade]

By having sex for something other than procreation then:

Does the Church mean that only relations during fertile periods are licit?

Illicit would be:

Sex outside of the fertile period–pregnancy is not likely.
Sex during pregnancy
Sex after menopause
Sex for the infertile.

For your interpretation to be correct—than the above must segue as true.

No, the part you quoted me in red does not require the others to be illicit.

Do I really have to say what was said already so many times in this thread? Having sex despite the inability to procreate is not the same thing as purposely avoiding conception.

 

[copperblade]

This is a false statemnet. It erroneously conflates fertility and procreative. Any intercourse the is done the way God intended it is procreative, whether the partners are fertile or not.

Just answer some simple questions then:

1. What does the NFP “failure rate” refer to? When does NFP fail?
2. When a couple uses NFP, do they intend to procreate at each and every act of intercourse? (yes or no)
3. Do they intend to not procreate at least while using NFP? (yes/no)

 

[davidv]

Just answer some simple questions then:

1. What does the NFP “failure rate” refer to? When does NFP fail?
2. When a couple uses NFP, do they intend to procreate at each and every act of intercourse? (yes or no)
3. Do they intend to not procreate at least while using NFP? (yes/no)

None of the answers to these questions address the core difference between regulating births with NFP or contraception.

Church teaches that:

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

Bolding mine.

Notice that it says “ordered to…procreation”. In does not say each act must be procreative. Can you see the difference?

 

[Nate13]

No, the part you quoted me in red does not require the others to be illicit.

Do I really have to say what was said already so many times in this thread? Having sex despite the inability to procreate is not the same thing as purposely avoiding conception.

Alright so your bit is that we have the intent to purposely avoid conception, correct? There is nothing wrong with this intent. The holy father did not say there is anything wrong with this intent. Its the MEANS by which you fulfill this intent that matter. NFP works within the nature in which God has made us, contraception doesn’t. If you go to link I posted earlier and listen to the talk you will learn why the these two means of carrying out the same purpose are different. You also use the word “avoid” conception as if we have any control over how a women’s body works. Unfortunately the egg is only in the sweet spot for 24-48 hours, and sperm can only live for 5-7 days tops in the fallopian tubes. If you have a problem with this I suggest you take it up with God.

 

[Warrior1979]

@copperblade
Church was definitely not quiet about it starting from day one. The early Church fathers referred back to the sin of Onan and in the 1800’s they were still referring to the sin of Onan.

I wonder if the Onan story would’ve turned out the same if he was having sex only during the infertile period.

 

[Nate13]

Just answer some simple questions then:

1. What does the NFP “failure rate” refer to? When does NFP fail?
   Obvoius
2. When a couple uses NFP, do they intend to procreate at each and every act of intercourse? (yes or no)
   NO
3. Do they intend to not procreate at least while using NFP? (yes/no)

YES

INTENT is not = MEANS/ACTION TAKEN
see my post before this one

 

[Nate13]

I wonder if the Onan story would’ve turned out the same if he was having sex only during the infertile period.

Depends if he had a good reason to not want a child. I’m not sure what “good” reason would have trumped the law which God gave them though in that case. Nice try but no cigar I guess he could have prayed and asked God what he wanted, but I think the law already made it quite clear that he was indirectly ordered by God to give her a child.

 

[copperblade]

Church was definitely not quiet about it starting from day one. The early Church fathers referred back to the sin of Onan and in the 1800’s they were still referring to the sin of Onan. These past Church authorities understood the implications of sex and natural law as Thomas Aquinas talked about. From natural law we know the true nature of sex. If you read Romans 1:27 you will see the bible refers to a “natural” relations between a man and woman compared to homosexual relationships. This infers the idea that there is a natural way to have sex. John Paul II’s teachings on sexual morality and Theology of the Body are based out of how we are created in the image of likeness of God. Notice in Genesis God says let Us create man in Our image and likeness. He is speaking as the trinity of three person’s. We are called to imitate the love of the Trinity when a man and a woman have sexual relations. God loves the Son and this love is so powerful it becomes the 3rd person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. We are called to love our spouses in this way. We are designed in this likeness as a man loves a woman, and this love with the help of God creates a new person, when he creates a new soul. This is why the sex act is so important and holy, because it is primarily through this act that we separate ourselves from the animals and show ourselves to be in the image and likeness of God.

I’m not sure how you’re connecting this to the discussion at hand. The claim here is that the Church previously taught that things like NFP were sinful.

Alright now see if you can imagine using a condom during this act and whether that would have the same meaning or whether it would be an insult to God? I’m sure God and the Son have a “barrier” between their love…

What do condoms have to do with anything? I thought we were talking about NFP.

Also PLEASE just go listen to these two audio bits before you reply further
blog.ancient-future.net/2008/03/21/contraception-why-not-mp3s-by-dr-janet-smith/

If I’m interested I’ll listen to them when I have time, but I think it’s unfair that it should be a condition for my participation. I strongly suspect I know what is being said there, given your responses to me: it probably compares artificial contraception to NFP. I’m not sure what I’ve said that has made you think that is pertinent. I’m perfectly fine just assuming artificial contraception doesn’t exist for the moment.

 

[Nate13]

What do condoms have to do with anything? I thought we were talking about NFP.

look at the title of this thread…

If I’m interested I’ll listen to them when I have time, but I think it’s unfair that it should be a condition for my participation. I strongly suspect I know what is being said there, given your responses to me: it probably compares artificial contraception to NFP. I’m not sure what I’ve said that has made you think that is pertinent. I’m perfectly fine just assuming artificial contraception doesn’t exist for the moment.

I’ve relayed to you about 1/1000th of what is in the talk. This talk covers why NFP works in accordance with God and contraception does not. The first part doesn’t talk about NFP but you need the first part to understand the second part so listen to both. You don’t have to listen to the talk, but I’m not going to even try to relay the contents of this talk to you myself in this forum because I would do a lousy job. Your the one who is asking questions on this forum and seeking answers so I assumed that if you were really serious in your curiosity you would be happy to listen to a talk that has all the answers and comes from someone you know the Church approves of. For all you know we could be telling you stuff completely different from what the Church teaches. Plus the talk would give us a basis for answering your questions afterwards if you have any.

 

[copperblade]

davidv and Nate13,

The last few pages of this discussion has been strictly about NFP and the historical teaching of the Church, regardless of the thread title. I apologize if I have inserted some confusing elements from the NFP vs contraception portion of the discussion that you were referring to.

 

[copperblade]

Depends if he had a good reason to not want a child. I’m not sure what “good” reason would have trumped the law which God gave them though in that case. Nice try but no cigar I guess he could have prayed and asked God what he wanted, but I think the law already made it quite clear that he was indirectly ordered by God to give her a child.

You’re not serious, right? The Church definitely teaches that wasting the seed outside the body is sinful, even if you’re practicing NFP. You can’t seriously be saying that coitus interruptus is ok with serious reason.

 

[Nate13]

You’re not serious, right? The Church definitely teaches that wasting the seed outside the body is sinful, even if you’re practicing NFP. You can’t seriously be saying that coitus interruptus is ok with serious reason.

haha no no read what I was responding to. Warrior was asking that IF Onan had been using NFP instead of pulling out would it have been a sin

 

[copperblade]

haha no no read what I was responding to. Warrior was asking that IF Onan had been using NFP instead of pulling out would it have been a sin

Oh got it. I misread Warrior’s response to mean if he had committed the same act while at the same time only having sex in the infertile period.

 

[Warrior1979]

Then stop listening to us and listen to someone who is paid to teach about it if you really want the answer. Get out of the boat of moral relativism.

catholicipod.stblogs.com/2008/03/05/contraception-why-not-janet-smith-mp3s-audio/

I only listened to the first part, which didn’t even begin to address any issues that I’m concerned about.

There is an interesting underlying theme in that part though. It is that man is inately unable to control himself, therefore controls must be set in place.

 

[Warrior1979]

Any intercourse the is done the way God intended it is procreative, whether the partners are fertile or not.

If anyone wants an example of issues I have with the explanation of the use of NFP, the quoted statement is an example. This is objectively nonsensical. This is an egregious misuse of terminology that confuses a great many of the faithful, an provides the equivalent of a nuke in the arsenal of those that oppose NFP.

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979, #1101
HV isn’t infallible either.

Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.

The ignorance, at this stage, is surprising. Refer to post #514:
“1) As the doctrine against contraception pertains to morals, the infallible dogma in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, reaffirmed in Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 25), declares the infallibility of the Pope in such teaching to the whole Church.

“2) Pope Pius XI in *Casti Connubii *teaches infallibly: “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (II, 56).”

1. Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, 14: “Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

“Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.” (16)

#1118:I wonder if the Onan story would’ve turned out the same if he was having sex only during the infertile period.

How puerile.
See post #573:
“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]
Onan was killed by God for contraception as the Holy Father affirms.

#1128:Originally Posted by davidv
Any intercourse the is done the way God intended it is procreative, whether the partners are fertile or not.

If anyone wants an example of issues I have with the explanation of the use of NFP, the quoted statement is an example. This is objectively nonsensical. This is an egregious misuse of terminology that confuses a great many of the faithful, an provides the equivalent of a nuke in the arsenal of those that oppose NFP.

Then get the right perspective from the Church.
See post #648: “Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, II, 59).

Thus, as seen above, the fact that God has created womanhood with only a short time for conception in the cycle, confirms that the bodily union has value and a meaning apart from procreation, and allows for NBR for serious reasons – a practice which allows for the complete marital act without gravely sinful impediments.

 

[Nate13]

If anyone wants an example of issues I have with the explanation of the use of NFP, the quoted statement is an example. This is objectively nonsensical. This is an egregious misuse of terminology that confuses a great many of the faithful, an provides the equivalent of a nuke in the arsenal of those that oppose NFP.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
Romans 1:26

I believe St. Paul is responsible for the idea of “natural” intercourse. The second part of the talk compares NFP vs contraception and describes the differences Warrior. I give you a link so you can hear the arguments from someone the Church allows to talk to its priests on the topic and you decide it isn’t good enough for you? If you really are that impatient skip to the second part and fast forward a bit.

 

[Warrior1979]

Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.

At least now I understand the lack of reasoning in your posts.

How puerile.
See post #573:
“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]
Onan was killed by God for contraception as the Holy Father affirms.

I am well aware of the conclusion and expected someone to bring it up.

But what you have also done is quoted a saint that affirmatively states that action to prevent offspring is unlawful and wicked, and thereby affirmed NFP is a no-go.

The fact that conditions are placed on NFP is an absolutely clear indication that there is a problem preventing the begetting of children even problematic by natural means.