NFP is a misnomer

[Angainor]

“Natural Planning” is an oxymoron. “Natural” means letting things take their own course. “Planning” means directing the course. If the natrual family size was 2.8 kids there would be no need to plan. The very act of planning a family size means you are acting outside of nature.

 

[mlchance]

“Natural Planning” is an oxymoron. “Natural” means letting things take their own course. “Planning” means directing the course. If the natrual family size was 2.8 kids there would be no need to plan. The very act of planning a family size means you are acting outside of nature.

And the source of your authority to contradict the Church’s teaching is…?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[1ke]

“Natural Planning” is an oxymoron. “Natural” means letting things take their own course. “Planning” means directing the course. If the natrual family size was 2.8 kids there would be no need to plan. The very act of planning a family size means you are acting outside of nature.

You are very confused.

 

[Liberian]

“Natural Planning” is an oxymoron. “Natural” means letting things take their own course. “Planning” means directing the course. If the natrual family size was 2.8 kids there would be no need to plan. The very act of planning a family size means you are acting outside of nature.

Angainor,

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “Natural” has a whole lot of definitions. The first one is “of or arising from nature; in accordance with what is found or expected in nature.” The fourth definition is “in a state provided by nature, without man-made changes; wild; uncultivated.” Natural family planning allows a married couple to plan their family in accordance with what is found or expected by nature, without introducing man-made changes into their marital relations.

If I may offer an analogy, the difference between natural family planning and artificial birth control is like the difference between redirecting the flow of a river and damming a river. One allows the river to continue to flow–to continue to be a river–while the other blocks it.

• Liberian

 

[Angainor]

mlchance:

And the source of your authority to contradict the Church’s teaching is…?

I have no more or less authority than Catholicism. The truth is what it is.

 

[Angainor]

Liberian:

If I may offer an analogy, the difference between natural family planning and artificial birth control is like the difference between redirecting the flow of a river and damming a river. One allows the river to continue to flow–to continue to be a river–while the other blocks it.

That is a fine analogy, but neither blocking nor redirecting the river leaves the river “in a state provided by nature, without man-made changes”.

Liberian:

Natural family planning allows a married couple to plan their family in accordance with what is found or expected by nature, without introducing man-made changes into their marital relations.

I have to disagree. Naturally a married couple would have many children, 8 or 9 or more. In order to have less children, a couple has to, in one way or another, behave outside their nature. This can mean abstaining when they would otherwise have the natural desire to… well you know.

Just take a close look at your defininitions of natural: “of or arising from nature; in accordance with what is found or expected in nature.” The fourth definition is “in a state provided by nature, without man-made changes; wild; uncultivated.”

If the desired number of kids happened to be the number “of or arising from nature; in accordance with what is found or expected in nature.” there would be no need to plan.

 

[KCT]

Angainor:

In order to have less children, a couple has to, in one way or another, behave outside their nature. This can mean abstaining when they would otherwise have the natural desire to… well you know.

So? Do you race home from work to ‘you know’ everytime you have an urge? Do you jump up from the dinner table or leave a restaurant everytime you have an urge to ‘you know’? If a man’s nature is to drop whatever he’s doing and tell his wife he wants ‘you know’, that’s pretty sad. --KCT

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Well, I happen to agree with you about NFP - and I use it! Not sure why it was compared to ABC though as you made no mention of it being the same as that. I agree the river analogy isn’t a good one.

Angainor:

Naturally a married couple would have many children, 8 or 9 or more. In order to have less children, a couple has to, in one way or another, behave outside their nature. This can mean abstaining when they would otherwise have the natural desire to… well you know.

Not true. Naturally, a couple may or may not have any children. Naturally, they may or may not have several children or, rarely, a grand plethora of children. I believe the average is about 5 or 6 though? Whet****her that qualifies as “many” or not depends largely on how you feel about the number you already have. I agree it is not natural to consult a chart before deciding if you want relations with your spouse or not. However, it is natural to abstain while receiving medical treatments. In the past, this was the normal reaction. Of course, there often wasn’t any other reaction available as BC and such wasn’t the norm or available as it is now.

If the desired number of kids happened to be the number “of or arising from nature; in accordance with what is found or expected in nature.” there would be no need to plan.
I agree. THIS is where many people get lost on NFP and it ends up being nothing more than catholic birth control, imho. We are told to NOT use NFP unless under grave and serious circumstances because we are told that we MUST desire and accept any life that may arise as sent by God. But the reality is that many, if not most, do not use NFP in this manner.

 

[Angainor]

KCT:

So? Do you race home from work to ‘you know’ everytime you have an urge? Do you jump up from the dinner table or leave a restaurant everytime you have an urge to ‘you know’? If a man’s nature is to drop whatever he’s doing and tell his wife he wants ‘you know’, that’s pretty sad. --KCT

Humans practice restraint. Animals wouldn’t think twice about following their urges whenever/wherever.

In the examples you give above, humans are acting outside their nature for reasons of social decency, or other reasons. That is perfectly OK, it is expected of human beings to behave with restraint.

Humans weren’t created to simply follow nature. Animals do that.

I have nowhere said NFP was in any way “bad”, just not “natural”.

 

[mlchance]

Angainor:

I have no more or less authority than Catholicism.

You’re half right. You have less authority than the Church which Christ Jesus established as the pillar of truth.

Now, rather than condemn that which you obviously don’t understand, educate yourself.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Angainor:

I have no more or less authority than Catholicism. The truth is what it is.

You’re absolutely right: the truth is what it is. But guess what the truth is? The Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[kev7]

Angainor:

Humans practice restraint. Animals wouldn’t think twice about following their urges whenever/wherever.

In the examples you give above, humans are acting outside their nature for reasons of social decency, or other reasons. That is perfectly OK, it is expected of human beings to behave with restraint.

Humans weren’t created to simply follow nature. Animals do that.

I have nowhere said NFP was in any way “bad”, just not “natural”.

Your logic is flawed. I solve logic problems all day at work and I’m about to shoot you down.

Are humans naturally intelligent? (true)

Is a plan a product of intelligence? (true)

It is therefore perfectly natural to plan a family. (true + true = true)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

KCT:

So? Do you race home from work to ‘you know’ everytime you have an urge? Do you jump up from the dinner table or leave a restaurant everytime you have an urge to ‘you know’? If a man’s nature is to drop whatever he’s doing and tell his wife he wants ‘you know’, that’s pretty sad. --KCT

Actually that sounds kind of good! That kind of spontaneity could be exciting for a marriage now and then. Gosh, to imagine Being Young and Always Ready again…

Sorry just thinking out loud. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

Alan

 

[mlchance]

kev7:

Your logic is flawed. I solve logic problems all day at work and I’m about to shoot you down.

Are humans naturally intelligent? (true)

Is a plan a product of intelligence? (true)

It is therefore perfectly natural to plan a family. (true + true = true)

As long as we’re striving to be logical, we can also draw attention to the frequent equivocation using the terms “nature” and “natural” (especially the latter). In Catholic parlance, “natural” doesn’t mean “of the natural world” or “the way animals do things” or “letting things to take their own course” (to use the flawed definition from the original post). “Natural” means “in conformity to natural law.” That is the only definition acceptable since it is the only definition relevant to the topic.

Natural family planning is family planning that is in conformity to natural law.

Also, folks have failed to challenge these bogus assertions by Rob’s Wife (numbered to make them easier to address, with emphasis added):
Rob's Wife:

1. In order to have less children, a couple has to, in one way or another, behave outside their nature.
2. I agree it is not natural to consult a chart before deciding if you want relations with your spouse or not.
3. If the desired number of kids happened to be the number “of or arising from nature; in accordance with what is found or expected in nature.” there would be no need to plan.
4. We are told to NOT use NFP unless under grave and serious circumstances because we are told that we MUST desire and accept any life that may arise as sent by God.
5. But the reality is that many, if not most, do not use NFP in this manner.

Numbers 1-3 all use the wrong meaning of “nature” and “natural,” the same error made by the original poster. We cannot cogently discuss Catholic teaching on family planning without first discarding erroneous data, such as that “natural” means “of or arising from nature; in accordance with what is found or expected in nature.”

Number 4 also misstates Catholic teaching by the inclusion of the term “grave.” NFP may be used due to grave reasons, but this isn’t the requirement. Serious reasons are, and serious is a less restrictive category in moral theology. Serious reasons can include matters ranging from extreme health risks to financial burden.

Number 5 simply presumes too much. Unless, of course, Rob’s Wife has interviewed “many, if not most” people who use NFP in order to pass judgment on their motives.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Please re-read my post.

mlchance:

Also, folks have failed to challenge these bogus assertions by Rob’s Wife (numbered to make them easier to address, with emphasis added):

1. In order to have less children, a couple has to, in one way or another, behave outside their nature.
   Those are not my words and I did not agree with them.
2. I agree it is not natural to consult a chart before deciding if you want relations with your spouse or not.
   These are my words and I stand by them. No where in the bible or tradition or the CCC is there mention of charting. Abstinence - yes. Not the “Art of Natural Family Planning” book.
3. If the desired number of kids happened to be the number “of or arising from nature; in accordance with what is found or expected in nature.” there would be no need to plan.
   These are not my words, but I did respond to them. We should desire to accept whatever number of children God blesses us with. That is the natural number of children we are to have.
4. We are told to NOT use NFP unless under grave and serious circumstances because we are told that we MUST desire and accept any life that may arise as sent by God.
5. But the reality is that many, if not most, do not use NFP in this manner.
   Those are, indeed, my words and again I stand by them.
   Numbers 1-3 all use the wrong meaning of “nature” and “natural,” the same error made by the original poster. We cannot cogently discuss Catholic teaching on family planning without first discarding erroneous data, such as that “natural” means “of or arising from nature; in accordance with what is found or expected in nature.”
   Actually, if you read what I wrote you will see that I too refer to God’s natural law.
   Number 4 also misstates Catholic teaching by the inclusion of the term “grave.” NFP may be used due to grave reasons, but this isn’t the requirement. Serious reasons are, and serious is a less restrictive category in moral theology. Serious reasons can include matters ranging from extreme health risks to financial burden.
   Okay, I can give you that, but it doesn’t change my point does it? Very few people use NFP for serious reasons.
   Number 5 simply presumes too much. Unless, of course, Rob’s Wife has interviewed “many, if not most” people who use NFP in order to pass judgment on their motives.
   Of course, I am presuming based on my own experiences with those who use NFP. I am not passing judgement on them though. I don’t think they are bad catholics or parents or anything else. However, I do disagree with their opinion. I also think that there IS a strong NFP is just catholic birth control mentality out there and it makes it difficult for many people to respect the Catholic church on its stance against birth control.

---

I would also like to point out that the original poster did not seem anti-catholic or anti-NFP - he seemed to be only giving “pen” to an honest personal observation with curiosity about others thoughs on the matter.

 

[BibleReader]

“Natural Planning” is an oxymoron. “Natural” means letting things take their own course. “Planning” means directing the course. If the natrual family size was 2.8 kids there would be no need to plan. The very act of planning a family size means you are acting outside of nature.

NFP is certainly in accord with Natural Law. In effect, that is what is being invoked in Humanae Vitae. That is “natural” enough for me!

 

[felra]

Angainor:

Humans practice restraint. Animals wouldn’t think twice about following their urges whenever/wherever.

In the examples you give above, humans are acting outside their nature for reasons of social decency, or other reasons. That is perfectly OK, it is expected of human beings to behave with restraint.

Humans weren’t created to simply follow nature. Animals do that.

I have nowhere said NFP was in any way “bad”, just not “natural”.

What’s not natural about using your brain? (Brain=primary sexual organ; the brain gives a person the capacity for reasoning, logic, and exercising discipline over one’s natural urges; brain allows one {unlike animals} to accept the responsibility to be co-operators/co-creators with the Creator in planning family size/timing).

 

[mercygate]

“Natural Planning” is an oxymoron. “Natural” means letting things take their own course. “Planning” means directing the course. If the natrual family size was 2.8 kids there would be no need to plan. The very act of planning a family size means you are acting outside of nature.

“Human” nature includes both reason, will, and informed conscience. Human nature is not limited to the biological sphere.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Are you saying that those who chose to accept the Lord’s will completely in this area are not using their brain?!

---

Let’s go back to the river example for a quick second and see if I can give another view.

---

No birth control at all is simple: There’s the river, there’s the boat, there’s your spouse. If your spouse and you want to take the boat out on the river, you do. If you &/or your spouse don’t think it’s a good idea, then you don’t. End of story.

---

NFP version of the river: There’s the river, there’s the boat, there’s the chart, there’s your spouse. If your spouse and you want to take the boat out on the river, you consult the chart that you have been diligently keeping updated in anticipation of this special event to decide if the waters are safe enough, the boat is comfortable enough, and the weather is nice enough - then you may decide based on that to either take the boat out, or stay where you are until the conditions seem more the way you’d prefer.

---

Now neither of these couples are neglecting their catholic faith. Neither are bad or brainless people. Neither method is wrong. Just a different perspective on abstaining.

 

[Ham1]

I think this hits a nerve that many big NFP fans (of which I am one) maintain. Just because NFP is natural does not mean it’s the “norm”. In God’s design there are norms and exceptions to the norm. NFP is certainly an exception which is precisely why certain conditions must exist in order to morally use it to avoid pregnancy. In God’s design of nature (before the fall) women give birth to children and then nurse them which spaces the children around 2-3 years apart. Enter evil, and some women don’t have as much natural infertility from breastfeeding and some difficulties arise necessitating limiting the size fo a family. NFP is the exception that God, in His infinite wisdom, allows for us to use in serious circumstances. I think we should all be careful not to fall into the idea that there are two modes of marital sexuality: NFP and Contraception. It should be: Natural and Unnatural. Natural can include NFP if it is being used for serious reasons.

Good thread topic, though.