NFP fully open to life?

[SemperJase]

PLAL:

Catholics who pick and choose the elements of the church which they feel they want are called “Cafeteria Catholics”. These are not “Practicing Catholics”.

Well I consider myself a “practicing” Catholic because I have to keep practicing until I get it right.

Which gives me second thoughts about seeing a practicing doctor

God’s Natural Law has both “gratification” & “openess to new life” as ONE ACTION.

According to the story of Onan it can be either. His sex with Tamar wasn’t for the purpose of unity (or even gratification). It was purely procreative.

T

hose 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.

As you said, they are specifically condemned (Well, except for masturbation, which the bible is noticably silent about), therefore I don’t have to defend those acts.

On the other hand, sex between a man and wife is specifically and exclusively promoted in the Bible with the only stated restriction being a break for prayer.

 

[PLAL]

SemperJase,

You are not at all clear on your understanding on Catholic teachings on many issues. I would recommend buying a Catholic Catechism book and update yourself on the teachings of the church. Here is one I would recommend…

usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm

 

[SemperJase]

PLAL:

SemperJase,

You are not at all clear on your understanding on Catholic teachings on many issues. I would recommend buying a Catholic Catechism book and update yourself on the teachings of the church. Here is one I would recommend…

usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm

There’s one on my desk at home.

Obviously I’m not wholly on board with the NFP thing. I’ve not said the church is wrong, just that I don’t see the logic. This is the only issue I can say I don’t see the logic on though.

What other issues do you think I’m not clear on?

 

[1ke]

SemperJase:

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.

Yes, it is objectively procreative. Objective means looking only at the attributes of the act as God created it. The act is complete, it’s unaltered, therefore it is as God created it: it’s objectively procreative. As PLAL stated, “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.”

Subjective means the actual results of that particular act. If the couple has sex when the woman is in her infertile part of her cycle, post menopausal, etc, then subjectively that particular act did not result in procreation.

So, any unaltered sex act is objectively procreative.

You are still missing the point that in contraception you engage in the act and alter it you do not leave it as God created and intended it. With NFP you either engage or abstain but you never alter the act. Abstaining during the fertile period is not contraceptive because there is no sex act.

 

[esr]

SemperJase,

On my journey to understanding the difference between NFP and ABC(including withdrawal) was the simple fact that a couple practicing NFP is in no way doing anything contrary to the actual marital embrace. There are no chemicals, barriers or withholding of any part of themselves. The husband and wife are giving themselves totally, faithfully and fruitfully to each other (just as Jesus gives himself to his Bride, the Church, in the Holy Eucharist). That is what God intended. The Theology of the Body really makes it that clear and simple.

 

[SemperJase]

1ke:

Objective means looking only at the attributes of the act as God created it. The act is complete, it’s unaltered, therefore it is as God created it:

I think I understand the disconnect. I would concede that the act knowingly having intercourse during a time of infertility with the intent of avoiding pregnancy is objectively complete by your description.

That doesn’t make it objectively procreative though. In fact by definition it cannot be procreative since the intent is to avoid procreation.

If a husband or wife discover one of them is always infertile, then by definition they cannot have procreative sex. But they still can have sex as God created between a man and woman, therefore making it objectively complete (based on your description).

You are still missing the point that in contraception you engage in the act and alter it you do not leave it as God created and intended it. With NFP you either engage or abstain but you never alter the act.

I can understand a church teaching that teaches intercourse must be complete and unaltered. I can’t understand the logical fallacy that sex can somehow be procreative when the timing of the sex is intended to avoid procreation.

 

[crohnie4life]

I’d like to add to ers’s comment,

NFP requires commitment and responsibility on BOTH partners. Isn’t that what marriage is all about? Unlike contraception where it puts pressure on the woman to take care of “preventing a pregnancy” and treats them as objects.

Where’s the love and respect when one uses ABC instead?

~Lisa

 

[SemperJase]

crohnie4life:

NFP requires commitment and responsibility on BOTH partners. Isn’t that what marriage is all about? Unlike contraception where it puts pressure on the woman to take care of “preventing a pregnancy” and treats them as objects.

This mischaracterizes NFP and ABC. You say both partners are responsible in NFP, yet the bulk of the responsibility falls on the woman to track her cycles and times of fertility/infertility. That is not the case with all forms of ABC.

In fact, it seems the only responsibility a man has is to allow his wife to tell him when they can have sex.

Where’s the love and respect when one uses ABC instead?

The love and respect comes when both husband and wife agree to use ABC.

You say ABC objectifies women. What about the times when the woman makes a decision to use ABC? It seems strange that only women are objectified. It seems to be an arbitrary claim.

Can’t women also be objectified if the man will only have intercourse when the woman is infertile?

 

[1ke]

SemperJase:

I think I understand the disconnect. I would concede that the act knowingly having intercourse during a time of infertility with the intent of avoiding pregnancy is objectively complete by your description.

That doesn’t make it objectively procreative though. In fact by definition it cannot be procreative since the intent is to avoid procreation.

Don’t look at the intent, as the intent to avoid conception is NOT disordered. The Church does not teach that we must intend to conceive with every act of intercourse.

Look at the act. You agree that it is objectively complete-- the way God created and designed it. Therefore, it is objectively procreative because that is how God designed it: sperm deposited inside woman. Procreative in its objective state.

SemperJase:

If a husband or wife discover one of them is always infertile, then by definition they cannot have procreative sex. But they still can have sex as God created between a man and woman, therefore making it objectively complete (based on your description).

Yes, intercourse is objectively procreative in this example even if subjectively it is incapable of creating life. It is objectively life giving because it is a Sacrament. Remember, a sacrament does what it signifies. The act of intercourse is not just a physical act between husband and wife, it is a Sacramental act of the marriage. It does what it signifies-- it gives life giving grace to the souls of the spouses at the same time it can give real life to a child. When you alter it, you remove both the Sacramental sign of the physical life-giving as well as the spiritual dimension of grace-giving.

Whether actual conception results or not, the act itself is objectively life-giving in its meaning and its actions.

SemperJase:

I can understand a church teaching that teaches intercourse must be complete and unaltered. I can’t understand the logical fallacy that sex can somehow be procreative when the timing of the sex is intended to avoid procreation.

Perhaps my above explanation helps. It is more than just a sex act, it is a Sacramental act.

So, the Eucharist gives us real food for our bodies and real grace for our souls. If we were to alter the Eucharist, say by altering the form or the matter, then we would cut off the real and the spiritual dimensions of the sacrament. Same with sexual intercourse-- the Sacraments have form and matter, and you cannot alter the God-given design. The sacramental renewal of the marriage covenant must be unaltered, complete intercourse.

 

[Petite]

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”.

If the marriage act is intended to stay fully open to life, then does this rule out marital acts for couples for whom conception is an impossibility–women who are post menepause, women who have had a hysterectomy to name two examples.

(I have brought this argument up before in other circles, and people have quoted examples from scripture–Sarah and Abraham, for example.)

It seems to me that the issue of using birth control is focusing on the fertile years of a couple’s marital relationship. Somehow, that seems to ignore the wider picture of marital love–for example, marital love for couples married for several decades, or for couples who marry/remarry late in life–i.e., post child bearing years.

(To me, that has been a sore point: the Church doesn’t address marital love only in so far as birth control. Martial love includes a lot more than that. Of course, I may be off topic here too–sorry!)

It *could be * argued that using NFP (and all other ABC methods as far as that goes) is indicative of a couple not necessarily trusting God. But, perhaps I have a pie-in-the-sky attitude. What would happen if we simply didn’t use ANY method of regulating births–just let things happen as God allows? I am only referring to birth control here–not to treating medical conditions.

Just a thought…

 

[crohnie4life]

hi semper,

The difference in ABC is this, contraception suppresses the couple’s fertility & treats it as a disease. They are no longer able to share each other in the act. There is a barrier erected between them. They are closing each other off from each other and from God. Often the couple soon begins to feel dissatisified. The wife begins to feel that the husband doesn’t desire her, only her body. The husband begins to feel that his wife doesn’t really want to be with him, that she is cold, and constantly requires him to beg to be together. These attitudes gradually poison their whole relationship.

Because most contraceptives are designed for women, when they fail and a pregnancy occurs, it is “her” fault and she is expected to “deal with it”. Also, when either uses ABC, they put their needs first without even giving thought to their partners needs. There is no self control.

NFP respects fertility and the virtue of self control. When spouses know that they can abstain for good reasons, they also come to trust each other more and avoid the risk of treating each other like objects.

~Lisa

 

[SemperJase]

crohnie4life:

Often the couple soon begins to feel dissatisified. The wife begins to feel that the husband doesn’t desire her, only her body. The husband begins to feel that his wife doesn’t really want to be with him, that she is cold, and constantly requires him to beg to be together. These attitudes gradually poison their whole relationship.

I’ve heard this claim. I just don’t believe that these attitudes are caused by ABC.

Because most contraceptives are designed for women, when they fail and a pregnancy occurs, it is “her” fault and she is expected to “deal with it”.

Perhaps in situations where the couple is not married. I don’t know if that is the general rule in marriages. As I’ve said, I know parents whose children were concieved when using ABC.

Also, when either uses ABC, they put their needs first without even giving thought to their partners needs. There is no self control.

An overgeneralization it seems. Couples who consent to ABC are making a joint decision.

I also disagree with the self control point. Both people are still restricting their sex lives to their marriage.

As far as forcing periods of abstinence, I’m not sure that is more noble than couples who more frequently engage in intercourse inside of their marriage.

 

[Fred_1]

SemperJase:

This mischaracterizes NFP and ABC. You say both partners are responsible in NFP, yet the bulk of the responsibility falls on the woman to track her cycles and times of fertility/infertility. That is not the case with all forms of ABC.

In fact, it seems the only responsibility a man has is to allow his wife to tell him when they can have sex.

Yes, the woman does does have to track her cycles using difference methods… This does NOT neccesarily mean the man just sits back and waits around for the woman to tell him when it’s ok to have sex. I’m only engaged right now, but already I’m working with my fiance and learning about her fertility. I know many married NFP using couples and honestly, quite often the man practically know the woman’s cycles better then the woman herself. Men will often take an active participation in NFP, and not just wait for his wife to tell him, like you sugest.

Also, the MAIN reason the responsibility is shared by both the man and the woman is that they have to abstain together!
It’s not neccesarily easy abstaining during the fertile periods, but both partners have to work together.

With contraception, the responsibility falls on no one. Honestly, how hard is popping a pill or slipping on a condom compared to abstinence?

SemperJase:

You say ABC objectifies women. What about the times when the woman makes a decision to use ABC? It seems strange that only women are objectified. It seems to be an arbitrary claim.

Can’t women also be objectified if the man will only have intercourse when the woman is infertile?

Well it IS possible for the woman to be objectified in NFP, but it is less likely. Man has had problems with objectifying woman since… well… pretty much forever. But contraception has aided in this objectification of women because it has allowed men to has sex whenever they want, no strings attached. It has severed any responsibility attached to having sex, making it much easier to have sex randomly and not care about the woman. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the rise of pornography coincided with the rise of contraception? (I don’t mean to say at all contracepting men objectify their partners, but simply that it’s much easier to fall into this)

With NFP however, while it is still possible for the man to objectify the woman, the man still has to retain some sort of respect for the woman. He has to respect her fertility. He can’t just have sex with her whenever he gets the impulse. Since the man becomes 50% responsible for the woman’s fertility, and whether or not they have a child, he has to weigh whether or not he is going to act on his impulse to have sex. This promotes respect for the woman (or, at the very least, helps prevent a man who acts on ape-like impulses to use a woman for selfish desire)

I eagerly await a reply if you can get around to it!

 

[Fred_1]

Oh! and as to the subject why NFP is open to life while contraception isn’t, here’s what I have learned.

Sex, in it’s basic form, says this: “I love you completely and I am giving my everything, my whole body to you! And not only that, but I am inviting God into this union, and He can bless us with a new life if He so chooses!”

well… you might not be caught saying that while having sex, but, that’s the basic drift.

Contraception says this: “I love you, and I’m giving you almost everything, except that, I’m holding onto that. And God, You stay out of this, this is just between her and I (or him and I)”

But would NFP say the same thing? After all, the both have the same end: To keep from getting pregnant.

But no. First off, with NFP, there is no chemical or physical barrier (which has already been mentioned earlier in this thread). And so the couple *can *say “I love you completely and I am giving my everything, my whole body to you!”

But what about the God part? Well, with NFP, since there is no intentional barrier put up, you arern’t saying “You stay out of this, God.” Rather, you’re saying “We are taking advantage of this time in her cycle, but God, come and join us, and, if You so choose, you can bless us with a new life!” There is a difference between the one and the other! I am friends with a couple (using NFP), and they were going to wait on their child, but right in the middle of her infertile period, she got pregnant. With NFP, the couple is still inviting God into that union if He so chooses.

And so NFP IS open to life and love, while contraception isn’t!

I recommend the books “Good News about Sex and Marriage” and “Theology of the Body for Begginers” By Christopher West. This is where I got all this from, but he says it much better and goes further into it.

Also, THIS CD, Contraception: Why Not, by Janet E. Smith, Ph.D, which you can get for free at the link I gave.

Again, I eagerly await a reply!

 

[thechrismyster]

crohnie4life:

I’d like to add to ers’s comment,

NFP requires commitment and responsibility on BOTH partners. Isn’t that what marriage is all about? Unlike contraception where it puts pressure on the woman to take care of “preventing a pregnancy” and treats them as objects.

Where’s the love and respect when one uses ABC instead?

~Lisa

my wife and i have used NFP since our wedding in 2004… and it’s hard to imagine anything bringing us closer. It’s been one of the best blessings in our marriage. When God gives us a child, it’ll be on his terms… ABC is the first step to the social conditioning in our society that tells couples a child needs to be “protected against” - we need to use barriers and chemicals to PROTECT us against a child. what is a child? a (#$**& terrorist??

 

[avgguy]

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”.

No you are 100% correct, but in order to make it look good they come up with NFP as being open to life, Its not its more planned against conception than using birth control because they work harder to NOT conceive and plan to not conceive on a daily basis.
and if its wrong time of month then nope cant have a “marital act”
which is impeding the marriage,
Being open for life during the “marital” act require get rid of thermometers and quick checking mucus, just have the act and what happens happens, end of story thats being “open to life”

can dress it however you want to but its still not being open to life
if you use NFP or ABC.one is no better than the other…

 

[Fred_1]

avgguy:

No you are 100% correct, but in order to make it look good they come up with NFP as being open to life, Its not its more planned against conception than using birth control because they work harder to NOT conceive and plan to not conceive on a daily basis.
and if its wrong time of month then nope cant have a “marital act”
which is impeding the marriage,
Being open for life during the “marital” act require get rid of thermometers and quick checking mucus, just have the act and what happens happens, end of story thats being “open to life”

can dress it however you want to but its still not being open to life
if you use NFP or ABC.one is no better than the other…

Please read my 2 posts almost directly above yours, and please reply and tell me what you think

 

[SemperJase]

Fred?:

I’m only engaged right now, but already I’m working with my fiance and learning about her fertility. I know many married NFP using couples and honestly, quite often the man practically know the woman’s cycles better then the woman herself. Men will often take an active participation in NFP, and not just wait for his wife to tell him, like you sugest.

I’m skeptical. Having been married for over eight years I’m very familiar with my wife’s cycle. Yet I can’t imagine how I would take an active part in testing her fertility. Not sure I’d want to other than asking where she is in the cycle.

With contraception, the responsibility falls on no one. Honestly, how hard is popping a pill or slipping on a condom compared to abstinence?

Well it does fall on someone. It doesn’t work unless it is used consistently.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that the rise of pornography coincided with the rise of contraception?

Seeing that pictures of nude women were taken immedately after the camera was invented, I trace it more to a correlation with advances in technology which makes it easier to create and distribute. Digital pictures (still and video) have made it possible for anyone to create high quality (in terms of picture resolution) pornography in their back room. The Internet has led to an exponential increase in the distribution of pornography as well.

With NFP however, while it is still possible for the man to objectify the woman, the man still has to retain some sort of respect for the woman. He has to respect her fertility. He can’t just have sex with her whenever he gets the impulse. Since the man becomes 50% responsible for the woman’s fertility, and whether or not they have a child, he has to weigh whether or not he is going to act on his impulse to have sex. This promotes respect for the woman (or, at the very least, helps prevent a man who acts on ape-like impulses to use a woman for selfish desire)

From the discussion about how ABC leads to men objectifiying women (but not a mention of the reverse) I’m starting to wonder if Catholic women view sex as a burden.

I don’t know that women feel objectified when they choose with their husbands to use ABC. From what I’ve seen here, women don’t feel objectified until they are told that is how they feel.

I recall another poster who told his wife their communication would suffer if she used ABC. Of course it did exactly as he predicted. I suspect it was more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than an unavoidable consequence.

 

[SemperJase]

Fred?:

But what about the God part? Well, with NFP, since there is no intentional barrier put up, you arern’t saying “You stay out of this, God.”

People who use ABC aren’t necessarily saying that either (let’s assume for this discussion that we are talking about people who consider themselves Christians). They believe that God has given us intelligence and free willl for the purpose of exercising those gifts.

Rather, you’re saying “We are taking advantage of this time in her cycle, but God, come and join us, and, if You so choose, you can bless us with a new life!”

There are Christian couples who welcome the children resulting from their union while using ABC.

There is a difference between the one and the other! I am friends with a couple (using NFP), and they were going to wait on their child, but right in the middle of her infertile period, she got pregnant. With NFP, the couple is still inviting God into that union if He so chooses.

ABC users would say that you are limiting God by claiming he can overcome infertility but not a sheath of latex.

 

[Petite]

Contraception says this: “I love you, and I’m giving you almost everything, except that, I’m holding onto that. And God, You stay out of this, this is just between her and I (or him and I)”

But would NFP say the same thing? After all, the both have the same end: To keep from getting pregnant.

But no. First off, with NFP, there is no chemical or physical barrier (which has already been mentioned earlier in this thread). And so the couple *can *say “I love you completely and I am giving my everything, my whole body to you!”

But what about the God part? Well, with NFP, since there is no intentional barrier put up, you arern’t saying “You stay out of this, God.” Rather, you’re saying “We are taking advantage of this time in her cycle, but God, come and join us, and, if You so choose, you can bless us with a new life!” There is a difference between the one and the other! I am friends with a couple (using NFP), and they were going to wait on their child, but right in the middle of her infertile period, she got pregnant. With NFP, the couple is still inviting God into that union if He so chooses.

And so NFP IS open to life and love, while contraception isn’t!

I think if you really believe this:

“We are taking advantage of this time in her cycle, but God, come and join us, and, if You so choose, you can bless us with a new life!”

why would the fertile time of the month even matter? If we believe that God calls each of us to life, then why would having marital relations during a fertile time necessarily result in a new life IF God didn’t deem that THAT was the time that another soul should be called to life? Just because a woman is at the fertile part of her cycle doesn’t mean she WILL become pregnant. And even if she DOES become pregnant, can we not assume that THAT is God’s will? After all, isn’t God the author of all life?

I think that holding back from one’s spouse is a lot more than a fertility issue (i.e.,using ABC or NFP). I have always thought that sex in marriage was a wonderful barometer of how the marriage is overall. As the rest of the marriage goes, so goes the sexual part. (This is my observation from the 27 years I was married.)