NFP fully open to life?

[SemperJase]

In another thread someone said, “The marriage act is intended to stay FULLY open to life.”

I have also seen the claim here that NFP practiced properly is more accurate than other forms of birth control such as condoms. Evidence has been offered of people who used NFP for 10 years or more without getting pregnant.

Now doesn’t it seem these two statements are contradictory? If NFP is more effective than ABC, then people using it are less open to life than people who use a less effective method. At least people who are successful in using NFP for 10 years cannot be said to be “fully open to life”.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

SemperJase:

At least people who are successful in using NFP for 10 years cannot be said to be “fully open to life”.

I disagree. I have a chronic illness that made hubby and I seriously consider if we should try to start a family. We used NFP to avoid conception but the whole time were praying to know what God’s will for us was (open to life). As I am almost halfway through my first pregnancy I can tell you that we believe it was God’s will for us to have a child.

Malia

 

[SemperJase]

I disagree. I have a chronic illness that made hubby and I seriously consider if we should try to start a family. We used NFP to avoid conception but the whole time were praying to know what God’s will for us was (open to life). As I am almost halfway through my first pregnancy I can tell you that we believe it was God’s will for us to have a child.

Malia

So would you disagree with the claim that NFP is more effective than, say, condoms?

 

[Jennifer123]

FYI-
There is currently a discussion NFP and condoms here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=98485&highlight=contraception

 

[1ke]

SemperJase:

In another thread someone said, “The marriage act is intended to stay FULLY open to life.”

Yes, each marriage act must be unaltered.

SemperJase:

I have also seen the claim here that NFP practiced properly is more accurate than other forms of birth control such as condoms. Evidence has been offered of people who used NFP for 10 years or more without getting pregnant.

Yes, NFP can be used to achieve or avoid pregnancy with accuracy. Some people have health conditions making it necessary to utlize NFP indefinitely in their marriage.

SemperJase:

Now doesn’t it seem these two statements are contradictory?

No, not at all.

SemperJase:

If NFP is more effective than ABC, then people using it are less open to life than people who use a less effective method.

You are confusing ends and means. The end of “birth control” is not immoral. The church does not teach regulating, postponing, or avoiding pregnancy is immoral.

Contraception is simultaneously engaging in the sex act and altering that act to make it sterile. A contraceptive sex act breaks objective procreativity, whether or not subjectively it results in conception or not. You are having sex and sterilizing it.

NFP is not an alternative to contraception. NFP is an alternative to total abstinence. You can choose to refrain from sex, that is not a sterilizing act because there is no sex act. You can choose to have unaltered sex, that is not a sterilzing act. Each time the marriage act is engaged in, it is unaltered. Therefore, it is objectively procreative whether it subjectively results in conception or not.

SemperJase:

At least people who are successful in using NFP for 10 years cannot be said to be “fully open to life”.

No, this is not an accurate statement.

 

[SemperJase]

1ke:

No, this is not an accurate statement.

Please explain. I don’t understand how a couple who only has sex when they are certain pregnancy will not result is open to life (this is based on the understanding that NFP is more reliable than ABC).

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

SemperJase:

So would you disagree with the claim that NFP is more effective than, say, condoms?

No, I disagree with what you said that I quoted…it had nothing to do with effectiveness.

As for effectiveness, all of the stats and studies I have seen seem to indicate that when used properly NFP is much more effective than any other form of birth control (other than abstinence or sterilization).

---

**I also disagree with your more current statement that couples who use NFP are certain that they will not conceive. As one half of a couple who uses NFP, I am never certain that I will not conceive.

---

** Each and every act for me leaves that in God’s hands. If I get pregnant during a time when science tells me I shouldn’t have, then I can be sure that it’s God’s will. If I were to get pregnant because some form of contraception failed then I would blame the method.**

---

Malia

 

[Princess_Abby]

When is a couple ever ‘certain’ they won’t conceive while using NFP? The whole idea is that even if no fertility markers exist, they still are willing to put their lovemaking in God’s hands and let every act be both unitive and procreative if God should see fit to bless them with a child. There are countless stories of blessings resulting from these types of scenarios–babies that might not exist if condoms were used or the pill taken.

And how is a couple who practices NFP for ten years, with no children, not ‘fully’ open to life? After I have this baby, we will have a just reason to avoid pregnancy for an undetermined period of time, until the reason is resolved. We will discern this on a monthly basis. But we realize that in choosing to have sex–whether actively avoiding or trying to acheive–based on the interpretation of my body’s cycle, we remain open to new life because we do not keep my husband’s fertility away from me and we do not inhibit my fertility from being present. For some people, that time period of a just reason to postpone might extend ten years or beyond. But if they choose to still place their trust in God’s hands and not allow any artificial barriers between them during sex, then they are definitely ‘fully’ open to life–as each sexual embrace is loving and life-giving.

 

[SemperJase]

** If I get pregnant during a time when science tells me I shouldn’t have, then I can be sure that it’s God’s will. If I were to get pregnant because some form of contraception failed** then I would blame the method.

Malia

Sorry, but I don’t understand the logic that says God can overcome infertile periods to make a woman pregnant but not a barrier of latex. It seems inconsistent.

 

[Princess_Abby]

SemperJase:

Sorry, but I don’t understand the logic that says God can overcome infertile periods to make a woman pregnant but not a barrier of latex. It seems inconsistent.

The whole idea is not God making something out of nothing–which He could do if He wanted to and perhaps that’s why there are plenty of pregnancies while using a condom or the pill or spermicide or whatever else–but that just because we humans don’t SEE mucus, a temp change or cervix change, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It’s possible to miss it. And therefore even if the couple is trying to avoid, they may end up acheiving because they missed the sign. Or maybe the sperm lives an unprecedented ten days inside the woman before fertile mucus. Or whatever. The difference is that an NFP couple is open to letting God work with their fertility because the couple does nothing to inhibit it–or Him.

 

[1ke]

SemperJase:

Please explain. I don’t understand how a couple who only has sex when they are certain pregnancy will not result is open to life (this is based on the understanding that NFP is more reliable than ABC).

“Reliability” is irrelevant. You are confused on the central teaching of the church.

You have improperly framed the “open to life” argument. You have framed it as “open to life” meaning “chance of conception”. That is not what the church means, and actually “open to life” is not exactly what the church teaches. Although this phrase is used when explaining church teaching, the phrase “open to life” is imprecise.

The church teaches that each act of intercourse must be objectively unitive and procreative. To be an act that is objectively procreative, the act must be unaltered. A condom alters the act and attempts to frustrate the act while engaging in it. An act of intercourse by a couple who is monitoring their fertility is always an unaltered act of intercourse.

A couple may choose to abstain at any time. But, whenever they choose to come together in the marriage act, that act must be unaltered and objectively procreative. Contraceptives fail to meet this criteria. Intercourse by a couple using NFP to observe their cycle does meet this criteria.

Again, the Church does not teach that it is immoral to avoid conception for a short period or indefinitely. The church does not teach birth control is immoral.

 

[SemperJase]

1ke:

You have improperly framed the “open to life” argument. You have framed it as “open to life” meaning “chance of conception”. That is not what the church means, and actually “open to life” is not exactly what the church teaches. Although this phrase is used when explaining church teaching, the phrase “open to life” is imprecise.

Well, I’ve been using the terminology I’ve picked up here. Yes, I have been equating the term open to life with chance of conception.

I suppose another would be open to having a child. But then again I’ve know people who conceived while using ABC and they love their children. They would say they were open to life.

A couple may choose to abstain at any time. But, whenever they choose to come together in the marriage act, that act must be unaltered and objectively procreative. Contraceptives fail to meet this criteria. Intercourse by a couple using NFP to observe their cycle does meet this criteria.

I still don’t see the logic. How is having intercourse only when the woman is thought to be infertile objectively procreative? The intent in that case is that the sex will not be procreative.

 

[Catholic2003]

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never found the term “open to life” very helpful in understanding the Church’s teaching on NFP and contraception. I will note that neither Humanae Vitae nor Casti Connubii use that term.

 

[1ke]

SemperJase:

Well, I’ve been using the terminology I’ve picked up here. Yes, I have been equating the term open to life with chance of conception.

I understand the confusion with the terminology. Unfortunately, it’s used a lot, but imprecisely. “Open to life” should not be equated to “chance of conception”. Really, I prefer not to use that term at all, for the exact reason you state.

SemperJase:

I suppose another would be open to having a child. But then again I’ve know people who conceived while using ABC and they love their children. They would say they were open to life.

Again, the the teaching is not about receiving a child with love, or receiving a child at all. The teaching on contraception is based on each individual act of intercourse. The person using contraception alters the act, regardless of whether they successfully thwart the end of the act or not. They took an action to do so, so the fact that they did not succeed-- and therefore conceived-- is not relevant.

SemperJase:

I still don’t see the logic. How is having intercourse only when the woman is thought to be infertile objectively procreative?

It is objectively procreative because the act is a complete, unaltered act. For sake of clarity, are you following my meaning of ‘unaltered act’?

It is procreative objectively because it is not altered, it is a completed act of sexual intecourse-- which by design is ordered to the end of procreation. Subjectively any specific act may or may not result in conception. But, objectively it is ordered to procreation when it is unaltered.

So, any act that is unaltered is by definition objectively procreative. That goes for a woman who is naturally sterile, post menopausal, pregnant, or in the infertile portion of her cycle.

A couple could have sex, and if it is on an infertile day of her cycle, it is still objectively procreative if it is unaltered.

SemperJase:

The intent in that case is that the sex will not be procreative.

Again, you confuse the end and means. The end of avoiding conception is not immoral.

 

[1ke]

Catholic2003:

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never found the term “open to life” very helpful in understanding the Church’s teaching on NFP and contraception. I will note that neither Humanae Vitae nor Casti Connubii use that term.

I agree, it confuses the issue and many people striving to understand the Church’s teaching.

 

[PLAL]

Natural Family Planning is the knowledge of a couple’s fertility. It is a knowledge base about a couple’s ability to conceive a child.

The application of this knowledge in a particular marriage is called responsible parenthood. The couple either decides to try to achieve a pregnancy or to avoid by timing their use of the privileges of marriage according to the knowledge of their mutual fertility. (The man, if healthy, is fertile all the time. The woman, if healthy, is fertile about three or four days a month.)

Responsible parenthood differs from contraception in two ways: 1. There is no alteration of the bodies of either the husband or wife and this is a huge difference. 2. When the couple uses the privileges of marriage, they are not holding back at all or refusing to give everything they are, physically and spiritually. If they are infertile at the time, this is the result of the way God created them. They are giving themselves totally to one another AS THEY ARE AT THAT MOMENT. No one could require more. Further, God never asked couples to use the privileges of marriage at any particular time. That decision is completely theirs. So, in the marital act during an infertile period, husband and wife who are applying the knowledge of their fertility (NFP) responsibly (responsible parenthood) are giving everything they are at that moment to one another.

The intention is also different. The NFP couple realizes that in every marital union there is a chance (perhaps remote) of conceiving a child and they accept this possibility. The contracepting couple (even if only with condoms) has a positive intention against confepction.

An example might help: I want some money from a bank. It makes a huge difference whether I go to the bank and draw the money out from a checking account or whether I approach a teller with a gun and “withdraw” $100. Either way, I get the $100, but one act is radically differnt from the other.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=441428

 

[PLAL]

Other good links on the topic…

NFP vs. Contraception ewtn.com/vexperts/showme…p?number=441428

Contraception Why Not by Dr. Janet Smith
catholiceducation.org/ar…ity/se0002.html

A Culture of Inverted Sexuality
catholiceducation.org/articl…ity/se0049.html

Contraception and Breast Cancer
polycarp.org/overviewbreastc…aceptives.h tm

Abortion/Breast Cancer Relationship - Karen Malec 1-20-06
www2.catholic.com/radio/cale…th=01&year=2006

The Couple to Couple League
ccli.org/nfp/contraception/index.php

Sin of Onan (Genesis 38-8-10)
usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis38.htm

Christoher West - Theology of the Body
christopherwest.com/hearnow.asp

 

[SemperJase]

1ke:

So, any act that is unaltered is by definition objectively procreative. That goes for a woman who is naturally sterile, post menopausal, pregnant, or in the infertile portion of her cycle.

I think we must define “objectively” differently. When the purpose of NFP is to avoid procreation, the resulting intercourse cannot be defined as objectively procreative.

PLAL:

If they are infertile at the time, this is the result of the way God created them. They are giving themselves totally to one another AS THEY ARE AT THAT MOMENT.

This makes a bit more sense. Food for thought.

You lose me here though:

PLAL:

The NFP couple realizes that in every marital union there is a chance (perhaps remote) of conceiving a child and they accept this possibility.

So do couples who use ABC.

The contracepting couple (even if only with condoms) has a positive intention against confepction.

Couples using NFP also are proactively avoiding conception.

 

[SemperJase]

Thanks for the links. I’ll check them out.

PLAL:

Sin of Onan (Genesis 38-8-10)
usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis38.htm

I am prepared for this one though. The story of Onan really isn’t related to the subject of ABC.

As I understand church teaching, it says that intercourse must be both unative and procreative. The problem with using the story of Onan is that the intercourse between Onan and Tamar was only to be procreative. It could not have been unitive because they were not married. Onan was directed to impregnate Tamar and that was it.

The other problem is that even the USCCB in the footnotes on that very page say the story wasn’t about birth control:

(from footnote 8) In the present story, it is primarily Onan’s violation of this law {preserving the brother’s line}, rather than the means he used to circumvent it, that brought on him God’s displeasure

 

[PLAL]

Here is my view on contraception…

Catholic teaching states abortion is a grave sin since it is the destruction of human life. You are right there are many Catholics who are wrongly practicing contraception. Catholics who pick and choose the elements of the church which they feel they want are called “Cafeteria Catholics”. These are not “Practicing Catholics”. Catholic teaching states Contraception is wrong but Natural Family Planning (NFP) is OK since God is still in control of the decision making process.

I look at human sexuality as having 2 variables. There is “gratification” & “openess to new life”. With contraception you want the “gratification” without being “open to new life”. I think if God wanted us to have one of these variables without the other, God would have created another action. God’s Natural Law has both “gratification” & “openess to new life” as ONE ACTION. Who are we to tell the Creator this was a mistake?

Those who feel contraception is morally OK must defend other sexual acts which takes the “gratification” but leaves the “openess to new life” behind like homosexuality (man & man), pedifilia (man & boy), masterbation (man with himself) & beastiality (man & animal) all of which are condemned in the Bible. This is just the way I look at it.

---

The Bible vs. Contraception Brochure

omsoul.com/item395.html

Christopher West - Theology of the Body “Created & Redeemed” 8-CD Set

christopherwest.com/item.asp?CategoryID=11