NFP grey areas?

[Peter_J]

To my Orthodox and Protestant brethen,

On a recent thread (Orthodox and birth control) one thing that came out very clearly is that, to non-Catholics, the Catholic position on birth control (contraception vs. NFP) can seem quite legalistic.

I thought it might be a good idea to response to that perception by recognizing and discussing certain “grey areas” which can come up with respect to NFP. I have one in mind (perhaps some of my fellow Catholic posters will add their own examples):

Humane Vitae tells us

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

So here’s the situation I’d like to consider: suppose one partner in a marriage takes medication (strictly for health reasons) with a side effect of infertility, but with no danger of being abortifacient. (Which, incidentally, in our current level of medical technology, might only be possible if the man is the one taking the medication.) Suppose further that this medication, whatever it may be, is to be taken periodically over a number of years, but the resulting infertility will not be constant; i.e. there will be periods of fertility and periods of infertility.

Now here’s the “grey area” question: Would it be lawful for the couple to use this medically-induced fertility/infertility cycle in a “modified NFP” plan, abstaining during all of the fertility periods so as not to conceive?

 

[Peter_J]

And just to make my own position on the economia question:

josephdaniel29 et al,

In my opinion, the ideal would be for a couple to have sex so infrequently that there would be no need to birth control of any kind.

But given the hardship this would mean for most couples (couples with an average or above average level of fertility) I think a certain application of “economy” to permit more frequent intercourse is appropriate. But how? Quite frankly, I can really only see NFP being allowed under economy, not contraceptives (even the two you mentioned, spermicide and barrier methods).

 

[TriuneUnity]

To my Orthodox and Protestant brethen,

On a recent thread (Orthodox and birth control) one thing that came out very clearly is that, to non-Catholics, the Catholic position on birth control (contraception vs. NFP) can seem quite legalistic.

I thought it might be a good idea to response to that perception by recognizing and discussing certain “grey areas” which can come up with respect to NFP. I have one in mind (perhaps some of my fellow Catholic posters will add their own examples):

Humane Vitae tells us

So here’s the situation I’d like to consider: suppose one partner in a marriage takes medication (strictly for health reasons) with a side effect of infertility, but with no danger of being abortifacient. (Which, incidentally, in our current level of medical technology, would only be possible if the man is the one taking the medication.) Suppose further that this medication, whatever it may be, is to be taken periodically over a number of years, but the resulting infertility will not be constant; i.e. there will be periods of fertility and periods of infertility.

Now here’s the “grey area” question: Would it be lawful for the couple to use this medically-induced fertility/infertility cycle in a “modified NFP” plan, abstaining during all of the fertility periods so as not to conceive?

I am no expert here, but it seems to me it would be lawful, assuming the medication is taken for health reasons. It doesn’t seem to be a modified form of NFP at all since they are still abstaining from intimacy during fertility periods. The introduction of medication into the equation doesn’t seem to have any impact on their behavior.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Even with NFP there needs to be a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, it shouldn’t be used selfishly. Although NFP is very effective, many of those who use it have large families because part of the mind-set of using it is to prayerfully consider God’s will and this may convict some couples that this is God’s will for them.

 

[Rawb]

I am no expert here, but it seems to me it would be lawful, assuming the medication is taken for health reasons. It doesn’t seem to be a modified form of NFP at all since they are still abstaining from intimacy during fertility periods. The introduction of medication into the equation doesn’t seem to have any impact on their behavior.

But the whole reason that NFP is licit is because it follows the natural (and therefor God given) fertility cycle. If you use a medicine to artifically alter that cycle, then there is little difference between Artifical Birth Control and Artificial NFP.

This is an interesting question. Could it be argued that since men do not naturally have natural fertility and infertile cycles that this then is not a factor and the relations are licit?

In the end however I’d go with the relations being licit. The medication is not taken with the intent to prevent conception, and I think the intent is what really matters here. They’re doing their best to abide by God’s laws with the situations life has handed them, although, as another poster said, they still have to have good reason to use NFP.

As another side, legalism isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if you’re not too caught up in the rules themselves, but trying to use the rules to obey God. Sometimes a thourough analysis of a situation can appear to some as ‘legalism’ while to others it is just attempting to discover God’s will.

 

[TriuneUnity]

But the whole reason that NFP is licit is because it follows the natural (and therefor God given) fertility cycle. If you use a medicine to artifically alter that cycle, then there is little difference between Artifical Birth Control and Artificial NFP.

This is an interesting question. Could it be argued that since men do not naturally have natural fertility and infertile cycles that this then is not a factor and the relations are licit?

In the end however I’d go with the relations being licit. The medication is not taken with the intent to prevent conception, and I think the intent is what really matters here. They’re doing their best to abide by God’s laws with the situations life has handed them, although, as another poster said, they still have to have good reason to use NFP.

As another side, legalism isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if you’re not too caught up in the rules themselves, but trying to use the rules to obey God. Sometimes a thourough analysis of a situation can appear to some as ‘legalism’ while to others it is just attempting to discover God’s will.

I agree with most of your points. I don’t know if Peter’s hypothetical means the medicine is altering the fertility cycle, merely that the medicine doesn’t always stop fertility cycles but that it follows a normal pattern.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree with most of your points. I don’t know if Peter’s hypothetical means the medicine is altering the fertility cycle, merely that the medicine doesn’t always stop fertility cycles but that it follows a normal pattern.

Glad you asked. My intention, in describing the hypothetical situation, was to say that there are more and/or longer periods of infertility as a result of the medication.

 

[Peter_J]

I think I could go either way on the question of permissibility of the aforementioned “modified NFP” (i.e. using “selective abstinence” to avoid pregnancy in the hypothetical situation I described).

On the one hand, someone might say that intercourse during a medically-induced infertility does entail contraception, but is still allowable as long as there is no intention to contracept. From this premise, it would seem (at least) to follow that deliberately timing intercourse to correspond with times of medically-induced infertility, and abstaining other times, in order to avoid pregnancy, is to intentionally contracept, and therefore morally wrong.

On the other hand, someone else might say that the difference between ABC and NFP is that ABC alters the body’s fertility/infertility times to correspond to times of intimacy, whereas NFP arranges times of intimacy according to the (unaltered) fertility/infertility times. If that is our premise, then it would seem to follow that the “modified NFP” plan I described above would be licit, since it does not further alter the body’s fertility/infertility times.

 

[Peter_J]

While we’re all pondering that “grey area question”, here’s another one.

Some women are too irregular to be able to use contraception, right? But I’ve heard that sometimes she can take medication that would make her more regular – not take away her fertility, mind you, but just cause it to occur in a predictable monthly pattern.

So is it licit for a women who’s naturally irregular to take such medication, so as to then be able to use NFP?

 

[Jennifer_J]

If a woman is prescribed a medication (such as the pill) that causes her to be infertile but is taking the medication for a different medical reason, then there is no need to abstain. In addition, if a woman needs a hysterectomy due to illness of that organ, it is allowed to be removed and there is no alteration in her ability to enjoy the marital embrace.

As to the irregular question…irregularity doesn’t make a women not able to use contracepetion…it may make NFP more challenging but NFP is still able to be used in most cases. There are a few cases where a woman doesn’t have any cycle and the use of progesterone is sometimes used to create a cycle. I would imagine that most of those cycles are infertile, but I’m not 100% sure. I think there have been posts about this somewhere on this forum before–probably in the morality section…

 

[StMarina303ad]

While we’re all pondering that “grey area question”, here’s another one.

Some women are too irregular to be able to use contraception, right? But I’ve heard that sometimes she can take medication that would make her more regular – not take away her fertility, mind you, but just cause it to occur in a predictable monthly pattern.

So is it licit for a women who’s naturally irregular to take such medication, so as to then be able to use NFP?

I do not have a regular cycle. According to the doctors I’ve seen in the past, the only way to get regular is to use artifical birth control aka the pill. This would eliminate the fertility cycle = no time to use NFP.

Personally, I see no reason, medical or otherwise, to force my body to have a regular cycle. It doesn’t hurt or harm me in any way to be irregular. Who cares?

If I did care and *had to have *a regular cycle (for what purpose, who knows?) then I would be on artificial birth control which would, of course, eliminate my fertility cycles.

If Catholic women use “irregularity” as an excuse to use artifical birth control, and according to the Catholic Church’s Humane Vitae that is allowable: to use artifical birth control if taking that medication for preventing conception is not your primary purpose, I would say those women are just looking for a loop hole and they’ve found one.

By the way, would this mean that abortions then also permissible in the eyes of the Catholic Church if killing the baby is not the “primary purpose” of the surgery? Perhaps the primary purpose is removing a tumor in the uterous and abortion is necessary in order to remove the tumor.

That line of reasoning bites.

 

[Jennifer_J]

By the way, would this mean that abortions then also permissible in the eyes of the Catholic Church if killing the baby is not the “primary purpose” of the surgery? Perhaps the primary purpose is removing a tumor in the uterous and abortion is necessary in order to remove the tumor.

That line of reasoning bites.

Actually, if a woman was diagnosed with say, uterine cancer–but was pregnant, she could licitly have her uterous removed, even though the outcome would be the death of the baby. The same goes for a tubal pregnancy, which would kill the mother–the diseased tube is allowed to be removed, even though the result is a dead baby. I’m not very good at explaining the reason why this is okay. What is NOT allowed is to kill the baby outright and then procede with treatment–if that makes sense? I think you could search the moral theology section and find a more complete explaination than I can give…but I know it has to do with double effect

Here’s a link post #12 relates to double effect, but the whole thread is pretty good.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=251073

 

[Peter_J]

Actually, if a woman was diagnosed with say, uterine cancer–but was pregnant, she could licitly have her uterous removed, even though the outcome would be the death of the baby. The same goes for a tubal pregnancy, which would kill the mother–the diseased tube is allowed to be removed, even though the result is a dead baby. I’m not very good at explaining the reason why this is okay. What is NOT allowed is to kill the baby outright and then procede with treatment–if that makes sense? I think you could search the moral theology section and find a more complete explaination than I can give…but I know it has to do with double effect

Quite right. It’s isn’t permissible to use an evil means to achieve a good end. (For example, directly killing a fetus isn’t morally permissible even if it saves the mother’s life). But it is sometimes permissible to perform an action knowing that an evil will happen as an “effect” of this action. (For example, you can remove the fetus to save the mother’s life even if it is likely or certain that he or she will not be able to survive outside of the womb.)