NFP is Birth Control (or is it?)

[Prometheum_x]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Mark,

I don’t see how you get “disingenuous” out of it. He was specifically supposed to impregnate the woman. If he had used NFP techniques instead of withdrawal he still would have been disobedient. There is no evidence whatsoever that withdrawal v. abstinence (refusal to comply) would have made any difference in whether God struck him down. Moreover, the method he chose to avoid impregnating her, according to NFP teaching, was much less effective than NFP anyway. Therefore, if God had wanted the woman to become pregnant He could certainly have done it even in this instance, ostensibly a lot easier than He could when NFP couples are “remaining open to life” by not using barriers at infertile times. The only thing “disingenuous” I see is a claim that this story is an indictment of the method itself, unless one also intends to claim that planning space between children is also intrinsically evil.
[/indent]This really does provide a good example of tortured human reasoning, if the whole prohibition against contraception depends on this Biblical example. The only way to be true to this reasoning would be to condemn any method of avoiding pregnancy, including NFP. He was struck dead because he failed to impregnate the woman he was supposed to impregnate, and yes he used the withdrawal method. As I said above, had he said to himself, “I know the natural fertility cycles of this woman, so I will make a deal that I will have intercourse with her one week from today” and thus avoided pregnancy, he would have been just as disobedient, and I would guess he still would have been struck dead by God. As you say, if every method does not have to be explicitly mentioned for the lesson to be true, than one would have indict NFP right along with any other method of spacing births.
Alan

I don’t know that it is quite so clearly established that Onan’s sin was that of simply avoiding his duty to provide children for his deceased brother.

There is a distinction between NFP and artificical birth control – it’s significance is a matter of opinion. NFP is a passive participation in God designed infertile periods, whereas ABC is an intentional and active attempt to render infertile what would otherwise be fertile. Practicing NFP is to “not do something”; practicing ABC is to “do something”.

By way of analogy, keeping silent about a matter and lying about a matter both accomplish the same thing: not telling the truth. However, the former is simply a withholding of true information but the latter is a corruption of true information, and I think this illustrates a significant difference between the two actions.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Prometheum_x:

I don’t know that it is quite so clearly established that Onan’s sin was that of simply avoiding his duty to provide children for his deceased brother.

That’s an interesting viewpoint. I thought it was pretty clear, but at least in the NAB it says “what he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too” so technically, you are right in that it does not say whether it was the method he was using or the ends he was trying to achieve. However, the context clearly indicates that the entire motive of Onan was not to produce offspring. Do you think Onan would have been OK if he had used NFP to the same end?

There is a distinction between NFP and artificical birth control – it’s significance is a matter of opinion. NFP is a passive participation in God designed infertile periods, whereas ABC is an intentional and active attempt to render infertile what would otherwise be fertile. Practicing NFP is to “not do something”; practicing ABC is to “do something”.

I respect your distinction, but isn’t the classification of NFP as “passive” participation also a matter of opinion? It seems to me that going to classes, and then carefully monitoring fertility, is not passive at all.

Maybe I’ll try an analogy; could we say that aiming a gun is a passive activity, on the basis that (even though shooting the gun is active) aiming isn’t because it doesn’t actually do anything except ensure you hit the target? I say aiming is active; it takes skill and concentration. Similarly, NFP is, IMO, an activity (and therefore active) that requires positive effort.

By way of analogy, keeping silent about a matter and lying about a matter both accomplish the same thing: not telling the truth. However, the former is simply a withholding of true information but the latter is a corruption of true information, and I think this illustrates a significant difference between the two actions.

If I understand your analogy, it sounds like you’re making the distinction between a sin of omission and a sin of commission.

Alan

 

[mlchance]

AlanFromWichita:

There is no evidence whatsoever that withdrawal v. abstinence (refusal to comply) would have made any difference in whether God struck him down.

Yes, there is. The punishment for not impregnating a brother’s wife was public humiliation, not death. God didn’t publicly humiliate Onan. He killed him. That indicates quite clearly that Onan’s act was of a different category entirely than merely refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law.

AlanFromWichita:

This really does provide a good example of tortured human reasoning, if the whole prohibition against contraception depends on this Biblical example.

That’s an awfully big if considering neither I nor the Church have ever said that the prohibition against contraception depend wholly on the Biblical example.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mlchance:

Yes, there is. The punishment for not impregnating a brother’s wife was public humiliation, not death. God didn’t publicly humiliate Onan. He killed him. That indicates quite clearly that Onan’s act was of a different category entirely than merely refusing to impregnate his sister-in-law.

Assuming you know about the customs and I don’t, you might have a good point. Perhaps the different category could be the hypocracy of pretending to do his duty to avoid public scrutiny, or perhaps it was the method itself.

That’s an awfully big if considering neither I nor the Church have ever said that the prohibition against contraception depend wholly on the Biblical example.

That sounds like my point. The prohibition against contraception is based on the teaching of the Church, which as far as I can tell is upheld by scripture vaguely at best. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a Protestant who does not believe in the teaching authority of the Church beyond the scriptures would not feel bound to this prohibition. What got me started on this was that a Catholic was puzzled by Protestant behavior which did not uphold this prohibition.

Alan

 

[Prometheum_x]

AlanFromWichita:

That’s an interesting viewpoint. I thought it was pretty clear, but at least in the NAB it says “what he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too” so technically, you are right in that it does not say whether it was the method he was using or the ends he was trying to achieve. However, the context clearly indicates that the entire motive of Onan was not to produce offspring. Do you think Onan would have been OK if he had used NFP to the same end?

Well, there are three possibilities. 1: The sin of Onan which resulted in his death was his refusal to provide offspring for his deceased brother. 2: The sin of Onan which resulted in his death was his perversion of the marital sexual act (his method). 3: The sin of Onan which resulted in his death was a compound one; he was judged for both his refusal and his method. From this passage alone, I think it cannot be determined which one is the correct interpretation.

I respect your distinction, but isn’t the classification of NFP as “passive” participation also a matter of opinion? It seems to me that going to classes, and then carefully monitoring fertility, is not passive at all.

Maybe I’ll try an analogy; could we say that aiming a gun is a passive activity, on the basis that (even though shooting the gun is active) aiming isn’t because it doesn’t actually do anything except ensure you hit the target? I say aiming is active; it takes skill and concentration. Similarly, NFP is, IMO, an activity (and therefore active) that requires positive effort.
If I understand your analogy, it sounds like you’re making the distinction between a sin of omission and a sin of commission.

Alan

First, I am not trying to make a distinction between the sins of omission and commission. For, while withholding the truth can possible be a sin of omission, one is not always obliged to speak what he knows; in fact, it would be wrong to divulge all information in some circumstances. The purpose of this analogy is to show that one can accomplish the same goal (keeping someone ignorant of information) in one way that is not immoral and in another way which is. Whether the same is true of the NFP/ABC issue has to be independently determined, but I think the analogy shows that it is at least *possible *for one to be moral and the other to be immoral, even though they both accomplish the same goal.

Second, all things that we do as humans are “active” in one sense or another, simply because we are in fact “doing”. When I refer to passive and active, I am doing so on the basis of cause: in this case, who is causing the infertility? God has designed the female body to have periods of fertility and infertility, and as such he is the cause of that infertility. One is passive insofar as they receive what God causes without attempting to change it. With ABC, one is attempting to cause what would otherwise be fertile (or at least have a chance of being fertile) to be become infertile.

That is the way I was using the words passive and active, so I’m not really able to respond to your aiming the gun analogy, as it seems to be using the words in a different way.

 

[mlchance]

AlanFromWichita:

Assuming you know about the customs and I don’t, you might have a good point.

Check Deuteronomy 25:7-10. The penalty for a man who refused his obligations to his brother’s wife was for the woman in question, in the presence of the elders, to take the man’s “sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and pronounce the following words, ‘This is what is done to the man who refuses to restore his brother’s house,’ and [the man’s] family must henceforth be known in Israel as House of the Unshod.”

Penalties of death under Mosaic law are reserved for crimes against natural law, such as incest, bestiality, et cetera. Onan received a penalty of death directly from God, indicating that Onan’s crime was one of this category.

Now consider this:

Prometheum_x:

Well, there are three possibilities. 1: The sin of Onan which resulted in his death was his refusal to provide offspring for his deceased brother. 2: The sin of Onan which resulted in his death was his perversion of the marital sexual act (his method). 3: The sin of Onan which resulted in his death was a compound one; he was judged for both his refusal and his method. From this passage alone, I think it cannot be determined which one is the correct interpretation.

Note the emphasis in the last sentence. From the account of Onan *alone, *it isn’t apparent for what he merited death. But, when Deuteronomy 25:7-10 is factored in, it is obvious he did not receive death for refusing “to provide offspring for his deceased brother.” That act was not a capital crime. What is left? Onan’s act of coitus interruptus, for which he was killed.

This interpretation has been the norm in both Jewish and Christian circles until in the early decades of the 20th century when certain Protestant sects began to dissent from it.

AlanfromWichita:

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a Protestant who does not believe in the teaching authority of the Church beyond the scriptures would not feel bound to this prohibition.

No argument there. I fail to see why Catholics are shocked that Protestants don’t act like Catholics.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[josea]

I think NFP is birth control almost very similar to ABC. The means used by NFP (thermometer, graphs and time windows) have the same intention that the artificial methods and it is a sin to use it without having serious reasons. What I still have lots of doubts about is why the artificial methods were not allowed ny the HV to be used in exceptional cases. I know the theoretical answer: because they are intrensic evil. Now I would like to know why the Church defined ABC and no the NFP as intrensic evil. The paradox here is that one can intend the same goal (not having children due to serious reasons), then intentionally separate the two aspects of marital relations using NFP but one is not allowed to do it using more refined techniques???
As somebody said here already I have to believe what the Chruch teach me, even if sound illogical, but then the Church should make clear that the HV is infallible (this issue is not clear at all and there are still some discussions about). I know that some of you do not have any problems to see the “rational” of this but, as a matter of fact, if there is so much confussion and theological dissent the issue might not be sooooo clear form the intellectual point of view.
Regards,
jose

 

[mlchance]

josea:

What I still have lots of doubts about is why the artificial methods were not allowed ny the HV to be used in exceptional cases. I know the theoretical answer: because they are intrensic evil.

That isn’t a theoretical answer. It is a factual answer. Artificial methods of birth control separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. They turn the marital act into a lie.

josea:

Now I would like to know why the Church defined ABC and no the NFP as intrensic evil. The paradox here is that one can intend the same goal (not having children due to serious reasons), then intentionally separate the two aspects of marital relations using NFP but one is not allowed to do it using more refined techniques???

NFP does not separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. It leaves them intact, but regulates them to period when fertility is naturally low (or, in the case of a couple actively trying to conceive, regulates the marital act to period when fertility is naturally high).

For some extremely informative reading about Church teaching on sexuality, please see Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[renee1258]

The different is intereupting the sexual act, compared to postponing it. A woman’s sexuality is focused on it’s ovulation. The supression of ovulation, even though it lasts 24-48 hours effects a woman’s desire to have sex through out her entire cycle. Without ovulation, a woman can’t menstrate. As with the pill, that is induced anovulatoty bleeding, not menstration.

I just find it disturbing that any man would what his wife to become a neutered person, so he can engaged in an sexual act in her (not with her) to satisfy his desire. What disturbs me more, is that woman go on the pill to be sexually free for men.

Men would refused to take a pill that killed off all of their sperm, they don’t like condoms (neither would I). Condoms in a general concesus are a ‘mood killer’ and knowningly abstaining is less frustrating then being in a moment to pause and put one on. But woman are expected to do crazy things to multilate their own bodies all for the same being held to some secularize standard to be readily available for intercourse on demand.

NFP is fair for both the husband and wife, both are required to abstain without distubing the bodily integrity for sexual act.

 

[josea]

NFP indeed separates procreative and unitive aspects. Having sex in sterile phase of the cycles does exactly that. And that is why NFP used without serious reason is considered a sin. Considering having sex only when the woman is not able to get pregnant IS separating the two aspects. That is what NFP is about!

Remember that St. Agustin always considered a sin the practice of finding out when the woman is fertile in order to abstain form sex.

Please, think about it.
Regards,
Jose

 

[AlanFromWichita]

renee1258:

I just find it disturbing that any man would what his wife to become a neutered person, so he can engaged in an sexual act in her (not with her) to satisfy his desire. What disturbs me more, is that woman go on the pill to be sexually free for men.

Dear renee1258,

I find it a bit disturbing to see such a one-sided picture of the marital embrace that it makes it sound like men are little more than horn-dogs and women are their sex slaves who reluctantly capitulate. Some women actually have a sex drive on their own accord and aren’t doing it solely to please men. If not, then they’re pretty good liars.

Also, those same men would gladly become temporarily “neutered” themselves rather than their wives if the technology were in place. I have also known men who, after much urging from their wives, have become sterile themselves.

You can believe that if they thought there was one way that reduced a woman’s desire and one way that didn’t men would choose the latter. Men in general are very sensitive over whether women enjoy their company.

Again, I’m not trying to sell contraception here. I am selling the notion that maybe the men aren’t the bad guys and the women unwitting or even unwilling victims of ostensible sexual immorality. Not only does that make men the aggressors, it makes women naive and/or overly passive.

Alan

 

[mlchance]

josea:

NFP indeed separates procreative and unitive aspects.

The Church, who is authoritative in matters of faith and morals, says otherwise, and actually has a rather extensive case to back up the claim. You, OTOH, have only a raw assertion.

josea:

Remember that St. Agustin always considered a sin the practice of finding out when the woman is fertile in order to abstain form sex.

Cite, please? Poor Augustine (as well as Thomas Aquinas) get blamed for saying all sorts of things they never said.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Vincent]

josea:

NFP indeed separates procreative and unitive aspects. Having sex in sterile phase of the cycles does exactly that.

The effectiveness of NFP involves not having sex during times of fertility. When you don’t have sex there are no procreative and unitive aspects to separate.

If having sex during times of infertility separates the two aspects that that would seem to imply that couples must abstain from sex during times of infertility— and once the wife goes in menopause, they *must *never again have sex. I don’t see a reason that would justify such a position.

 

[josea]

Here it is the cite:

“Is it not you who used to warn us to watch as much as we could the time after purification of the menses when a woman is likely to conceive, and at that time refrain from intercourse, lest a soul be implicated in the flesh? From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust. Marriage, as the marriage tablets themselves proclaim, joins male and female for the procreation of children. Whoever says that to procreate children is a worse sin than to copulate thereby prohibits marriage; and he makes the woman no more a wife but a harlot, who, when she has been given certain gifts, is joined to man to satisfy his lust. If there is a wife there is matrimony. But there is no matrimony where motherhood is prevented; for then there is no wife. (The Morals of the Manichees 18.65 PL 32:1373)”
Regards,
Jose

 

[josea]

Vincent:

The effectiveness of NFP involves not having sex during times of fertility. When you don’t have sex there are no procreative and unitive aspects to separate.

If having sex during times of infertility separates the two aspects that that would seem to imply that couples must abstain from sex during times of infertility— and once the wife goes in menopause, they *must *never again have sex. I don’t see a reason that would justify such a position.

Strictly speaking sexual intercourse during infertile times are NOT PROCREATIVE… How could they be? Therefore, meticulous planning to have sex during times of infertility indeed is a way to separate the two aspects. Actually that is the whole point in practicing NFP: people want only the unitive aspect and not the other.There was a big theological discussion to admit that this is indeed hapennig during menopause and in the times of infertility and that was finally not considered a sin. That is the exact weak point of the whole issue about yes to NFP and no to ABC.

Regards,
Jose

 

[josea]

For all of you interested read the PART I of this deep analysis on the issue:

Is There a Solution to the Catholic Debate on Contraception? on

www.innerexplorations.com/catchtheomor/is.htm

Regards,
Jose

 

[Vincent]

josea:

Strictly speaking sexual intercourse during infertile times are NOT PROCREATIVE… How could they be? Therefore, meticulous planning to have sex during times of infertility indeed is a way to separate the two aspects.

Sure, during times of natural infertility, the conjugal act will not result in conception. But since the couple neither manipulates the conjugal act to be anti-procreative, nor do they render themselves to be infertile, the conjugal act itself is still oriented to procreation. Therefore, I still don’t see how the conjugal act during times of infertility separates the two aspects.

 

[mlchance]

josea:

Here it is the cite:

“Is it not you who used to warn us to watch as much as we could the time after purification of the menses when a woman is likely to conceive, and at that time refrain from intercourse, lest a soul be implicated in the flesh? From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust. Marriage, as the marriage tablets themselves proclaim, joins male and female for the procreation of children. Whoever says that to procreate children is a worse sin than to copulate thereby prohibits marriage; and he makes the woman no more a wife but a harlot, who, when she has been given certain gifts, is joined to man to satisfy his lust. If there is a wife there is matrimony. But there is no matrimony where motherhood is prevented; for then there is no wife. (The Morals of the Manichees 18.65 PL 32:1373)”

Not to be a killjoy, but Augustine is speaking against the Manichean idea that procreation itself is sinful, not that NFP is contrary to the Faith.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Prometheum_x]

josea:

For all of you interested read the PART I of this deep analysis on the issue:

Is There a Solution to the Catholic Debate on Contraception? on

www.innerexplorations.com/catchtheomor/is.htm

Regards,
Jose

I read all three parts. While the author makes some good points, I discovered a flaw in his reasoning. When I am done writing my analysis of that flaw, I will post it here.

 

[renee1258]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear renee1258,

You can believe that if they thought there was one way that reduced a woman’s desire and one way that didn’t men would choose the latter. Men in general are very sensitive over whether women enjoy their company.

Again, I’m not trying to sell contraception here. I am selling the notion that maybe the men aren’t the bad guys and the women unwitting or even unwilling victims of ostensible sexual immorality. Not only does that make men the aggressors, it makes women naive and/or overly passive.

Alan

If that was true condom sales would be up, and women would be throwing away their pills. Whether it be marital or non-marital relations. From just me and the gals talking in the past, it is common for the male to suggest the Pill in a relationship. Lots of woman with low self esteem can’t even bring themselves to request a man wear a condom. I’m not selling casual sex, but that is what happens.

Women can’t even get a man to put his nose in a book about woman’s fertility or sit in an NFP class. Maybe if we teach the graphic aspects of NFP to boys going through puberty, when they might have a higher interest in exploration, we can have them become more sensitive.