NFP is Birth Control (or is it?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tom_of_Assisi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it hard to believe God wants us only to have sex (within marriage) once every 9 months, pop a kid out, and only then can we have it again, and only for the purpose of popping another kid out. I mean, a child is the greatest blessing you can ever get- but you can only have so many, physically and financially.

It’s also for “renewing the marriage covenant” and for man and wifre being intimate with each other on all levels. From all I’ve heard and seen… well, everywhere… it’s quite a pleasurable thing, so I assume He meant for us to enjoy it. Responsibly. And morally.

In our confirmation class, they taught “sex is God’s gift to married couples,” which sounds a bit juvenile, but I think they have the concept right.
 
40.png
mlchance:
, but Augustine is speaking against the Manichean idea that procreation itself is sinful, not that NFP is contrary to the Faith.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Also, but what he is saying is that the way in which the Manichean are using marriage is not OK. It is not allowed to do what they do: to watch to see when a woman is more likely to conceive and then refrain from intercourse. He says:
“From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust”.
Everybody knows that the opinion of the Church regarding the aim of marriage have changed with the centuries but that, at that time, the ONLY goal of marriage was to procreate.

But just another cite from this very web site:

“To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” Clement of Alexandria.

Just to show you the way of thinking those times.

Regards,
jose
 
40.png
josea:
Also, but what he is saying is that the way in which the Manichean are using marriage is not OK. It is not allowed to do what they do: to watch to see when a woman is more likely to conceive and then refrain from intercourse. He says:
“From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust”.
Everybody knows that the opinion of the Church regarding the aim of marriage have changed with the centuries but that, at that time, the ONLY goal of marriage was to procreate.

But just another cite from this very web site:

“To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” Clement of Alexandria.

Just to show you the way of thinking those times.

Regards,
jose
Click to expand...
We can easily do proof texting with the Church Fathers, just as we can use selected quotations from the Bible to support all sorts of ideas. In understanding the meaning of what the Church Fathers wrote, we must understand the context of their words, not just in terms of the other things they wrote but also in terms of what they were writing against.

Look at the words of St. Augustine which you have quoted here: “From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust.” He is referring to marriage as a whole, as a single entity. In other words, “The purpose of marriage is the procreation of children.” This does not mean that there can be no other purposes nor that every single instance of the marital act have as its primary desire the procreation of children.

By way of analogy, the primary purpose of the car is transportation. The car, however, is also equipped with a radio, so, while my primary purpose is to get from here to there, I can also enjoy listening to the radio while I do so. In fact, I may periodically sit in the car just to listen to the radio and not go anywhere at all. It still remains true that I bought the car for transportation – not for the radio. It would have been foolish if I had bought the car in order to have a radio, caring nothing at all for the transportation it offered.
 
40.png
josea:
He says: “From this it follows that you consider marriage is not to procreate children, but to satiate lust”.

Everybody knows that the opinion of the Church regarding the aim of marriage have changed with the centuries but that, at that time, the ONLY goal of marriage was to procreate.
Click to expand...
That was not Church teaching at the time, nor was it even Augustine’s teaching (an important distinction). Look at Augustine’s words above. He is criticizing the Manichaens for deliberately separating the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act merely to “satiate lust.” This is still the Church’s teaching.

Could someone abuse NFP in such a manner. Certainly. No argument. But the use of NFP is itself not an abuse, and to assert the contrary is absurd.

It does not follow from this that the “ONLY goal” of marriage is the procreation of children. To treat the marital act in such a way would be also to separate the unitive and procreative aspects, and would also stand condemned by the Church.
40.png
josea:
But just another cite from this very web site: “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature” Clement of Alexandria.
Click to expand...
So? One isolated quote from one early Christian writer does not a doctrine make.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
I would agree that NFP can be used in such a way as to try to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of intercourse.

IIRC, Humane Vitae stipulates that natural means such as NFP can be used to delay or prevent pregnancy for grave reasons. It appears to me the the church has diligently AVOIDED making rigid definitions of what constitutes a ‘grave’ reason. And rightly so. It varies greatly from person to person. Depends on maturity, life history, strength of the marriage and all kinds of things. In short, it’s a moving target that cannot be rigidly defined.

If you are telling me that NFP is always morally equivalent to ABC, then I’d have to suspect you were USING ABC. Rationalization oftens works that way.
 
What St. Augustine is saying is that marriage can not be used for other goals different to procreation. Thas is not pickin up sentences here or there. That was the opinion that time and a huge teological debate took place at the begining of the XX century to discuss wheter or not to have sex in the infertile phase of the woman’s cycle was licit. The were different publications on that. Just look for it and you will find it. The whole purpose of my intervention here was to show that NFP, as well as ABC, can separate the two aspects of marriage. By the way, I have never used ABC my dear. But as always in all these forums one picks up only sentences and answer accordingly. I hope somebody understood what I wanted to say. If not, I do not care.
Be good.
Regards,
Jose
 
40.png
Vincent:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. Actions are defined by their “whatness” and difference, not merely by the results. If a physician treats your high blood with medication, you are still under treatment even if the medication doesn’t work. Is heterosexual intercourse essentially different from other sexual acts and bodily functions? Of course, heterosexual intercourse is necessary but not necessarily sufficient for procreation and therefore formally procreative. All other activities are not necessary and never sufficient. You may say that contraceptive heterosexual intercourse is practically the same as none procreative sex acts. Practically, the two can’t be compared. Does a lesbian couple need oral contraceptives to prevent pregnancy? Practically, a man doesn’t need a prophylactic if he only seeks self-gratification.
 
Roman Catholic thinker Elizabeth Anscombe relfects on the theological implications of contraception and chastity. Writing as a Roman Catholic, Anscombe offers a penetrating moral analysis of marriage and sexuality that will benefit any reader who rejects the secularist reduction of marriage as merely a union that sanctions sexual activity between partners. (Text is 16 pages. You might want to print it.)

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.shtml

Contraception and Chastity

Elizabeth Anscombe
 
I’m not sure if this has already been addressed in this thread. NFP is allowed by the Church, but only for a “serious reason”. If no serious reason justifies it, it is morally sinful. The problem with NFP today, as with so many other things, is that it is being abused. Some Churches actually have NFP classes that they encourage people to attend! But NFP is only allowed for a serious reason. For example: I know a couple who has 6 children. The mother now has some kind of problem. If she becomes pregnant it is very likely that she will die. That is a good example of a serious reason. But if no serious reason exists, NFP is not allowed.

I am going to quote a portion of a talk that Pope Pius XII gave, dealing with NFP (as well as a link to the entire talk); and also a portion of Humanae Vitae. Both of these tell us that there must be a “gave reason” for married couples to obstain with the explicit intent of not having children.

Pope Pius XII: "The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work * concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune… The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. …to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty [having children] without a grave reason, ***would be a sin against the very nature of married life. **

"Serious motives … may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life… If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles."

Link to the entire talk by the Pope: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3462

In the following quote, we see that Humanae Vitae also says that “serious motives” must be present to “space our births”, for it to be “licit”.

"If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions… [Pope Paul VI, *Humanae Vitae 16]
So, while NFP is allowed, it is only allowed for “grave reasons”, and not as a substitute for birth control.
 
The beauty of NFP is that the couple, as the ministers of the sacrament of marriage, decide together based on a host of factors, the feasibility of engaging in the marital embrace. It is not just about temps, it is not about mucus, it is not about charts, it is not about the number of children present, it is not about money and at the same time it is about all of the above and more.

The couple, as co-creators with God, decide if now is a good time or not to engage in the maritial embrace. It may or may not be. The specific “grave” and or “serious” reasons are not defined as it is between the co-creators and God, not a third or fourth party, not even the Church.

The couple participate in a mutual act of total self-giving. On some days of the month, more or less “self” may be available. But each martial embrace is a total gift of self. This is the design of God, unique to those in his image and likeness.

God designed women and men in a certain fashion. To alter a normal, functioning organ system by defeating it design through the use of an outside force is a sin, and always is.

To apply your faith and reason to an act that is sacramentally limited to only two people and God is to act in the image and likness of God. My wife and I may enjoy the marital embrace at any time we mutually choose to for any reason we choose to. What we can not do is alter this embrace in a manner outside the design of God.

As a matter of simple logic, what other drug as a matter of intentional design shuts down a normal healthy organ system? What surgery, as a matter of intention, destroys a normal organ system?

But we think it is totally normal to take drugs and have surgery or use comdoms when it comes to reproduction. That logic makes a child, not the expected outcome or blessing but an enemy to be at least avoided and sometimes killed.

Deep down, when we do contracept, we reject our spouses. We reject that which is uniquely them; we reject their DNA. Worse, we also shut God out of an act that he sacramentally ordained himself to participate in with the spouses. This makes it a grave sin. All of Christianity recognized it as such until the Lambeth Confrence of 1930.
 
Yes, NFP is birth control - you are controlling your births!

However, I think a main point is being left out. With NFP, you know there is no contraception going on. With artificial birth controls, there may be. Some forms of the pill, IUDs, etc, CAN allow the egg and sperm to meet up, but they will not let them implant to the walls of the uterus. This is essentially a form of miscarriage. Babies are being created, but they are made “not welcome” in the woman’s body.

Using NFP PREVENTS the contraception. And if it does happen, they environment will be free of medications, devices, etc so that the baby CAN thrive. Moral? I think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top