NFP Makes No Sense To Me

[CatholicofAgora]

Anyway good luck to the OP I hope she got her question answered.

Thanks, and I’m a boy btw. I actually just started a thread on having gender indicators for that reason…

I guess there are some good arguments here in rebuttal to my point that “I don’t think pinky ring will get in the way of God’s divine plan.” I guess God does give us free will, and apparently wishes to “bless us” when constraint on that free-will via temptation is tested.

Mrc, I have to disagree with you when you said “Is not having a sex life a bad thing? No.” I think that that is a very bad thing if you’re married. The effect that NFP has on marriages such as in Mrc’s case is concerning to me. 1 Corinthians 7:5 says “Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.” I think obviously the most tempting time to have sexual relations is whenever you’re fertile. St. Paul even says he writes this “by way of concession, not of command.”

Someone pointed out that contraception has sort of “opened the door” to extra-marital affairs. However, contraception has always existed in one form or another. It isn’t contraception itself that opens that door, but one’s actual openess to extra-marital affairs. If religious beliefs put a strain on marital intimacy, then what’s to stop one (or both) partners from secretely getting it somewhere else? I know you’d probably be fast to condemn such a person, and rightfully so, but even the Catechism acknowledges that a person’s very own free-will is lessoned by the power of temptation:

“1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”

In such a situation one would have the pressures of both upholding the illusion that they are as religiously devoted as their spouse and not disappoint them AND masking the necessity of their own sexual desires. When you’re in a marriage you don’t commit to celibacy, you commit to monogamy. In Mrc’s case, his sex life has nothing to do with intimacy with his spouse, it’s strictly pro-creative. I’m not insinuating that your wife may be cheating on you, Mrc. I’m certain you are intelligent enough to have chosen a partner that shares your convictions, but the point I’m making still remains. I think that lust is pure and simply apart of marriage. St. Paul even encourages marriage against his own desires:

“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” -1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

If even St. Paul wouldn’t dare command that couples withhold themselves for due season, then why should we? You can say that this isn’t what we’re doing, but in reality it is. Because if you don’t, it’s a mortal sin, unless of course you want to get pregnant.

It’s not about effectiveness…
When using a condom you are still having sex. You are going through the motions that are intended/created as both unitive and procreative… and you are thwarting the purpose of those motions.
When abstaining you are respecting the completeness of what sex is intended/created to be by avoiding it altogether.

???

When you have sex while you are infertile you are still having sex. You are going through the motions that are intended/created as both unitive and procreative… and you are thwarting the purpose of those motions.
When you abstain from sex to have infertile sex, you are AVOIDING what the “completeness of sex” is intended for, not respecting it. It’s not like you can’t have love-producing intimacy without pro-creation. Otherwise, you’d have sex everytime you were fertile.

 

[thewanderer]

It’s not about effectiveness…
When using a condom you are still having sex. You are going through the motions that are intended/created as both unitive and procreative… and you are thwarting the purpose of those motions.
When abstaining you are respecting the completeness of what sex is intended/created to be by avoiding it altogether. ]

Well… the thing here is that in the one case you are actually doing something to change the nature of the act, (putting on a condom), whereas in the other case you aren’t, you are just accepting the fact that you aren’t fertile. Does that difference make sense?

 

[ishnianqueen]

…but even the Catechism acknowledges that a person’s very own free-will is lessoned by the power of temptation:

“1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”

Methinks you are misinterpreting the Catechism. None of those things are temptation. If temptation was enough to get me off the hook for my sin, then I don’t think I’d ever need confession.

I’m glad that you’re doing so much research and looking into finding an answer for this question, and I’m also glad you’re back on the thread, since you’re the OP.

What about the argument that using contraception is withholding a part of yourself from your spouse and that you are therefore breaking a wedding vow?

 

[CatholicofAgora]

Well… the thing here is that in the one case you are actually doing something to change the nature of the act, (putting on a condom), whereas in the other case you aren’t, you are just accepting the fact that you aren’t fertile. Does that difference make sense?

Not whenever you wait/only have sex when you’re infertile. Then you’re not “accepting” that you’re infertile, you’re waiting until you’re infertile. You’d probably then say that I’m looking at NFP like contraception again, but we’re not in the middle of the bubanic plague: there’s no reason for me to want 10-20 kids…

 

[CatholicofAgora]

Methinks you are misinterpreting the Catechism. None of those things are temptation. If temptation was enough to get me off the hook for my sin, then I don’t think I’d ever need confession.

I’m glad that you’re doing so much research and looking into finding an answer for this question, and I’m also glad you’re back on the thread, since you’re the OP.

What about the argument that using contraception is withholding a part of yourself from your spouse and that you are therefore breaking a wedding vow?

Thank you very much ishnianqueen Sorry I’ve been away, had a lot of wok to do. I’m not saying that temptation excuses you from sin. I brought up this passage in the Catechism to demonstrate that the enormity or one’s whole consent to a sin can be lessoned or diminished as a result of opressive factors towards that temptation such as ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

For example, one may suffer from chronic masturbation, fear the loss of intimacy with their spouse or be forced to perform sexual favors for someone outside of their marital relationship. One may feel guilt and disagree with these behaviors, but they consneted to them because they succumed to pressure. A good Catholic should wish to be completely blameless, even in the face of death. It’s as St. Paul wrote in Romans 7:

“17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.”

 

[thewanderer]

Not whenever you wait/only have sex when you’re infertile. Then you’re not “accepting” that you’re infertile, you’re waiting until you’re infertile.

I have to say that I really don’t understand why you think its any different. When a couple is using NFP to avoid knows its the infertile period and decides to have sex they are not taking any action to avoid kids. The point is that while there is nothing wrong with the intent to avoid children when it would be imprudent to have children. What is wrong is to take an action to change either ones fertility or the nature of the marital act. So there is nothing wrong with having sex while infertile at a time that you wish to avoid having children. What is wrong is taking an action to change the nature of the marital act, such as putting on a condom, taking the pill etc etc. “NFP” is nothing more than gaining knowledge about ones fertility and then using that knowledge to abstain from marital relations when it would be imprudent to engage in them.

You’d probably then say that I’m looking at NFP like contraception again, but we’re not in the middle of the bubanic plague: there’s no reason for me to want 10-20 kids…

No, not at all. I think people need to realize this more often, the Church does not in any way shape or form try to tell people they need to have 15 kids. The Church recognizes that we are rational creatures and that our rationality is a God-given gift which we are supposed to use to guide our lives. In other words, we are supposed to use our reason to help us make prudent decisions throughout our life. If we determine that having a child at any given point in time would be imprudent then we should use that knowledge to help us make appropriate and prudent decisions about how to act.

 

[mrs_ahs]

I felt the same way when I was single, even when I was first married. I had many of the thoughts you did, although I was more on the let’s-forget-NFP-and-all-this-stupid-abstinence-and-just-trust-God-and-have-15-kids side of the fence. I have now been happily married for almost 9 years (next month), sleeping in the same bed with my husband for that entire time, and we have had four babies. And now I understand. That is probably not very helpful, but it’s what I’ve got.

We both have grown a lot, and NFP is just a routine part of our life. With each baby we’ve had and each year that’s gone by, we’ve gained more self control, gotten a little wiser, and abstinence during the fertile time has gotten a little easier, not to mention we are BUSY! But we make time for each other. The whole sex-during-phase-3-isn’t-as-fun-problem has disappeared totally, and I’ll just leave it at that because my husband is a member of this forum.

 

[aspirant]

I’ve occasionally heard people claim there’s “no difference” between using NFP and using a condom to postpone pregnancy. If they really believed that, however, they’d have no objection to using NFP rather than using a condom. Despite what the “no difference” crowd says, I think it’s pretty obvious that they can tell the difference between having sex and not having sex. I certainly can.

 

[agapewolf]

This seems like a word game. If you are deliberately avoiding times when you are likely fertile, and only having sex when likely infertile, you have the same intent as a person using contraception. Either way, the end goal is avoiding pregnancy. If you never have sex when fertile, then the act is not ordered toward procreating.

Wrong on both counts.

No one is arguing there is different INTENT. THe intent does not have to be different in order to have a moral and immoral means.

I need money. I can A) Rob a bank or B) earn it.

Same intent, different means of getting there.

I don’t think you understand what “ordered towards” means. Ordered towards does NOT mean achieving, or even possible to achieve. “Ordered towards” means that nothing is being willfully done to make it “ordered against”.(Contra) Not having sex isn’t an action. I’ll bet you aren’t having sex right now. There is nothing immoral about NOT having sex.

In NFP, the act itself is not desecrated by withholding fertility.

 

[CatholicofAgora]

I have to say that I really don’t understand why you think its any different. When a couple is using NFP to avoid knows its the infertile period and decides to have sex they are not taking any action to avoid kids. The point is that while there is nothing wrong with the intent to avoid children when it would be imprudent to have children. What is wrong is to take an action to change either ones fertility or the nature of the marital act. So there is nothing wrong with having sex while infertile at a time that you wish to avoid having children. What is wrong is taking an action to change the nature of the marital act, such as putting on a condom, taking the pill etc etc. “NFP” is nothing more than gaining knowledge about ones fertility and then using that knowledge to abstain from marital relations when it would be imprudent to engage in them.

I think that here is where a line can be drawn between your concern and mine. You believe that altering the of marital act is deteriorating to it’s intimacy and I believe that abstaining from the marital act is deteriorating to it’s intimacy, which is the intent and purpose of the marital act. Of course it must also be open to life and is whether you obstain or use contraception. We’re both looking at it as the act of spacing out the birth of your children, not the total disregard thereof. However, where you and I differ is that I see abstaining as being just as “altering” of the marital act as I do contraception: the only difference is that abstaining deteriorates the intimacy of the marital act. Contraception does not, and we both agree that intimacy is what the marital act is for. Couples are more sexually active whenever they’re fertile than when they are not; so you’d literally be telling them that they’re not allowed to be intimate when they’re naturally most inclined to be, unless of course they want a child for every time they have sex. You’re pretty much contracepting at the expense of marital intimacy. All contraception does is make what you’re trying to achieve with NFP ten-times easier. Honestly, damaging the intimacy between two married people is a much greater concern to me than “altering the marital act.” I mean, even if the seed doesn’t enter it’s still the marital act. For example, if you let another person perform oral sex on you until you cast your seed, your spouse will still be offended because you took “the marital act” outside of the marriage. You can say “well it didn’t go in, so it doesn’t count.” Yet you know that it does.

I felt the same way when I was single, even when I was first married. I had many of the thoughts you did, although I was more on the let’s-forget-NFP-and-all-this-stupid-abstinence-and-just-trust-God-and-have-15-kids side of the fence. I have now been happily married for almost 9 years (next month), sleeping in the same bed with my husband for that entire time, and we have had four babies. And now I understand. That is probably not very helpful, but it’s what I’ve got.

We both have grown a lot, and NFP is just a routine part of our life. With each baby we’ve had and each year that’s gone by, we’ve gained more self control, gotten a little wiser, and abstinence during the fertile time has gotten a little easier, not to mention we are BUSY! But we make time for each other. The whole sex-during-phase-3-isn’t-as-fun-problem has disappeared totally, and I’ll just leave it at that because my husband is a member of this forum.

I’m glad to hear that you’re living such a happy marriage, congradulations

I’ve occasionally heard people claim there’s “no difference” between using NFP and using a condom to postpone pregnancy. If they really believed that, however, they’d have no objection to using NFP rather than using a condom. Despite what the “no difference” crowd says, I think it’s pretty obvious that they can tell the difference between having sex and not having sex. I certainly can.

That’s exactly why I have an issue with this. I think that abstaining every time you’re fertile is more disasterous to a couple’s intimacy than just using contraception. St. Paul expresses similar concerns and doesn’t ask couples to abstain out of command but of point of reason, and it’s for the sake of prayer, not for the sake of contraception.

I don’t think you understand what “ordered towards” means. Ordered towards does NOT mean achieving, or even possible to achieve. “Ordered towards” means that nothing is being willfully done to make it “ordered against”.(Contra) Not having sex isn’t an action. I’ll bet you aren’t having sex right now. There is nothing immoral about NOT having sex.

In NFP, the act itself is not desecrated by withholding fertility.

That would be true if you weren’t having sex. However you are having sex, but only when you’re infertile. That’s “ordering against” conception. I.e. contraception. You are taking action, you’re just choosing when and when not to. The only difference is that you’re not using latex.

 

[CatholicofAgora]

Sigh. Honestly I’m afraid of sounding too stubborn or argumentitive. The truth is that I really hate this. I know that I am arguing against the Church and against the faith. I’m not trying to argue, I’m just trying to establish why it’s hard for me to conform intellectually to the Church’s position in regards to this issue. I’m hoping that one day I’ll just “get it” like mrs ahs by actually experiencing it. I thought that I “got it” whenever I had sexual relations with my ex using contraceptives, because we were heart-sinkingly scared of actually concieving of a child. I thought to myself “this isn’t what God wants for my relationship, or for me.” It was truly terrifying and I understood why the conception of a human being shouldn’t be percieved in such a way. However, if the actual changing of the sexual act is the problem and not the fear of actually concieving, then I don’t see how it makes one iota of a difference. I can imagine being more secure in a marital relationship and not caring if our “percautions” didn’t work out. Just like I wouldn’t care if we messed up the timing using NFP to avoid pregnancy. I thought that openess to life was the real issue; but contraception in marriage is really just a matter of spacing the births of your children, whereas not having sex all together is hazardous to your intimacy -as in it doesn’t occur. You can say it’s not, but several people have testified otherwise both here and on the link I provided in the OP. I just wish that this wasn’t as much a part of the faith as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Primacy of the Pope or the Blessedness of Our Lady, but it is. As in, it is pronounced infallibly by the Church as a part of the Catholic faith. Being Catholic will forever be about Christ, the Sacraments, the Scriptures, the Church, and being absolutely positive that your seed ends up in the vagina of the woman that you’re married to. Yup. No more seperable than Christ in the Eucharist…

 

[aspirant]

abstaining every time you’re fertile

The Church’s teaching does not require anyone to abstain from sex “every time you’re fertile.” Married couples are welcome to engage in sex during the fertile periods of a woman’s cycle as long as the spouses and their act remain open to the possibility of conception. You know this, of course, in part because many of the faithful Catholics with whom you are speaking have children.

I think that abstaining every time you’re fertile is more disasterous to a couple’s intimacy than just using contraception.

On this point, I think you are quite wrong. Periodic abstinence from sex, whether in the context of NFP or otherwise, is extremely helpful to people striving to acquire the virtue of self-mastery, which is a virtue absolutely essential to ensure the freedom of the gift and therefore essential to marital intimacy.

The only difference is that you’re not using latex.

Not by a long shot, as I said: “If {people} really believed that, however, they’d have no objection to using NFP rather than using a condom. Despite what the ‘no difference’ crowd says, I think it’s pretty obvious that they can tell the difference between having sex and not having sex. I certainly can.”

I’m not trying to argue, I’m just trying to establish why it’s hard for me to conform intellectually to the Church’s position in regards to this issue.

There is a difference between questioning in search of answers and dissent. Stick to the first, and you’ll be OK.

I thought that openess to life was the real issue

It is one of the issues: Each and every sexual act, if you engage in one, must be open to the transmission of life. Nothing should be deliberately done, if you engage in a sexual act, to frustrate that possibility, to overlay “I give myself to you” with the qualifier “but not completely.”

 

[Mrc]

I know you’re getting frustrated. I can only speak for myself, but I think the reason why everyone who has responded to you saying that something isn’t right is because there’s just a lot of what seems to be contradictory statements going on - really, in all the posts on this thread from you. “NFP is great! But it sucks.” or “We don’t really know what’s going on, but we’re pretty much experts.” or “We can’t have sex a lot and when we do, it hurts her, and she’s not really interested (and there are more details but I’m not going to share them), but she’s totally 100% fine.” It can’t be both.

Personal experience - check out the condition vaginismus. It’s more a psychological conditioning problem than a physical problem. Pretty much, the woman’s muscles in her pelvic region tense up, and the tension causes the pain. Physically, nothing is actually wrong with the woman, as everything is in perfect working order, but there is some kind of mental and physical training to undo. Sometimes, it’s because of previous pain, sometimes it’s because of being brought up thinking that sex is dirty and not allowed, sometimes it just happens, but it can be overcome with some mental unblocking and physical exercises and time.

Anyway, just my $.02.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Nfp is awesome, no sex life sucks. We do know exactly what’s going on and we are pretty much experts and have been in contract with many nfp couples ( teaching as well as practicing for many years) constantly.

 

[UUTDad]

Wrong on both counts.

No one is arguing there is different INTENT. THe intent does not have to be different in order to have a moral and immoral means.

I need money. I can A) Rob a bank or B) earn it.

Same intent, different means of getting there.

I don’t think you understand what “ordered towards” means. Ordered towards does NOT mean achieving, or even possible to achieve. “Ordered towards” means that nothing is being willfully done to make it “ordered against”.(Contra) Not having sex isn’t an action. I’ll bet you aren’t having sex right now. There is nothing immoral about NOT having sex.

In NFP, the act itself is not desecrated by withholding fertility.

You explain your position very well, thank you. I think for me the biggest issue is that I simply don’t believe that artificial birth control is an immoral means. Yes, I realize that it is not in line with church teaching or with what most people on this board seem to believe. I respect that others here don’t feel that it is acceptable, I’m just not one of those people.

 

[agapewolf]

You explain your position very well, thank you. I think for me the biggest issue is that I simply don’t believe that artificial birth control is an immoral means. Yes, I realize that it is not in line with church teaching or with what most people on this board seem to believe. I respect that others here don’t feel that it is acceptable, I’m just not one of those people.

Not that simple. It’s not an arbitrary rule. It’s there because it is actually bad for us. Read Tob for beginners, and you won’t be “one if those people”.

 

[Em_in_FL]

???

When you have sex while you are infertile you are still having sex. You are going through the motions that are intended/created as both unitive and procreative… and you are thwarting the purpose of those motions.
When you abstain from sex to have infertile sex, you are AVOIDING what the “completeness of sex” is intended for, not respecting it. It’s not like you can’t have love-producing intimacy without pro-creation. Otherwise, you’d have sex everytime you were fertile.

AHHHHH… you’ve finally arrived at the crux of the issue.
MOST people are misunderstanding the word “procreative” for “procreation”… let’s go back to grammar class for a second:
The word “procreative” is an adjective that describes how the verb “sex” is done. It is done in a “procreative” way… it’s only about the actions and motions. It says NOTHING about the fertility of the woman at the moment those actions are done.
The word “procreation” is a noun… it’s the act or process of procreating, which does assume fertility.

So yes, a woman could be completely infertile and still have procreative sex. A woman could be cyclically infertile and have procreative sex.

It doesn’t matter if she’s infertile or fertile, temporarily or permanently… the action of sex can still be done in a “procreative” manner… where the sex is “ordered toward procreation” (again, never actually saying “procreation” has to take place).

To put it bluntly… “procreative sex” means that the husband must finish inside the wife… again, fertility doesn’t matter.

Grammar, people!

God’s design/purpose of sex is NEVER thwarted if the act is always both procreative and unitive. God DESIGNED women’s cycles to go through the ferile/infertile phases, after all.

 

[JackieMom]

As someone who will need to use NFP to avoid for the next 15-20 years after this baby is born and has not always been happy about it…

Sometimes it’s better to stop wrestling with Church teaching, and start following it out of sheer obedience and humility. Our Church (and therefore, God), says we can’t use contraception. That’s really the end of it, whether we like it or agree, isn’t it?

I figure if somehow the Church is wrong, and when I die I find that God really does not care if people use contraception, He will still be abundantly pleased with the hardship I endured and the sacrifice I made in the name of obeying Him.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Sigh. Honestly I’m afraid of sounding too stubborn or argumentitive. The truth is that I really hate this. I know that I am arguing against the Church and against the faith. I’m not trying to argue, I’m just trying to establish why it’s hard for me to conform intellectually to the Church’s position in regards to this issue. I’m hoping that one day I’ll just “get it” like mrs ahs by actually experiencing it. I thought that I “got it” whenever I had sexual relations with my ex using contraceptives, because we were heart-sinkingly scared of actually concieving of a child. I thought to myself “this isn’t what God wants for my relationship, or for me.” It was truly terrifying and I understood why the conception of a human being shouldn’t be percieved in such a way. However, if the actual changing of the sexual act is the problem and not the fear of actually concieving, then I don’t see how it makes one iota of a difference. I can imagine being more secure in a marital relationship and not caring if our “percautions” didn’t work out. Just like I wouldn’t care if we messed up the timing using NFP to avoid pregnancy. I thought that openess to life was the real issue; but contraception in marriage is really just a matter of spacing the births of your children, whereas not having sex all together is hazardous to your intimacy -as in it doesn’t occur. You can say it’s not, but several people have testified otherwise both here and on the link I provided in the OP.** I just wish that this wasn’t as much a part of the faith **as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Primacy of the Pope or the Blessedness of Our Lady, but it is. As in, it is pronounced infallibly by the Church as a part of the Catholic faith. Being Catholic will forever be about Christ, the Sacraments, the Scriptures, the Church, and being absolutely positive that your seed ends up in the vagina of the woman that you’re married to. Yup. No more seperable than Christ in the Eucharist…

Thank you for your openness on your struggles. I think a lot of your misunderstandings get the to the very root of the purpose/definition of marriage and what it means within God’s plan.
Yes, it is a very VITAL part of the faith…
The creation of new souls - that do not exist in time or space until a man and woman are united - has “guidelines” around it because of how IMPORTANT this job is in the grand scheme of universal salvation. God inspired these “guidelines” to get all souls to heaven… but He gave us the free will to make that decision. He waits for the married couple to give their “fiat” (like Mary’s “yes” at the Annunciation) to God… and God’s guidelines help steer us toward eternal life.

God DESIGNED sex to be awesome. He DESIGNED sex to be the chosen method for creating new souls. He also DESIGNED sex to have this really nifty cycle… how GENEROUS of God to give us this cycle (not all creatures have cyclic fertility! Could you imagine being ALWAYS fertile?!?)… so that we COULD choose, if we have prayerfully discerned that it’s not a good time to conceive, to avoid conception. ALL WITHIN His design. It’s amazing, and beautiful, and generous. There is no need to go beyond His design.

 

[Rico_S]

When a couple is using NFP to avoid knows its the infertile period and decides to have sex they are not taking any action to avoid kids.

I believe this line of thinking is one that tends to confuse people. It doesn’t make sense. You are in fact taking an action to avoid kids…as you are using NFP to avoid pregancy. You choose when to have sex, or more importantly, when not to have sex–that is an action. I occasionally have a family dinner party and I invite everyone in my family…no exclusions. However, my sister, while I love her dearly, can be a bit much, and I would prefer to not have to deal with her. So I invite her, but knowing that she works every Friday evening, I go ahead and usually plan the dinner for Friday evenings. I still extend the invitation, but know she cannot come. Well I find out that next weekend she works Saturday evening instead of Friday evening…and I want to have a dinner party that week. So I decide to switch the dinner to Saturday evening. Can I claim I have taken no action? I mean, the dinner is the same, everyone is invited, same location etc…it just so happens that my sister is gone on the nights I have the party.

What is wrong is to take an action to change either ones fertility or the nature of the marital act.

Yes, this is more to the point and clearer. This is the “rule” This is what we are to follow. This is understandable. Is is ok to avoid having children (intent), but one cannot do so by taking action to change ones fertility or the nature of the marital act (action)–perfect. NFP does not alter the nature of the act or require action to change ones fertility. I, like you, believe this quite clear and shows the difference between NFP and ABC.

But…confusion sets in when people try to explain** why **altering the act or taking action to change fertility is wrong. We start to see phrases like “open to life” or “rejection of fertility” or “no action is taken with NFP” etc. We see intent being mixed in with explanation…“when you are contracept you are essentially saying …” In my experience, here is where the confusion comes. The rule is clear, there is a clear difference between abc and nfp. But the explanation of why is where the conversation so often gets muddled. And unlike many CAFers, I do not believe that those who just don’t get it are necessarily being willfully obstinate and justifying their own sin (although this may be true is some cases).

 

[agapewolf]

I believe this line of thinking is one that tends to confuse people. It doesn’t make sense. You are in fact taking an action to avoid kids…as you are using NFP to avoid pregancy. You choose when to have sex, or more importantly, when not to have sex–that is an action. I occasionally have a family dinner party and I invite everyone in my family…no exclusions. However, my sister, while I love her dearly, can be a bit much, and I would prefer to not have to deal with her. So I invite her, but knowing that she works every Friday evening, I go ahead and usually plan the dinner for Friday evenings. I still extend the invitation, but know she cannot come. Well I find out that next weekend she works Saturday evening instead of Friday evening…and I want to have a dinner party that week. So I decide to switch the dinner to Saturday evening. Can I claim I have taken no action? I mean, the dinner is the same, everyone is invited, same location etc…it just so happens that my sister is gone on the nights I have the party.

Yes, this is more to the point and clearer. This is the “rule” This is what we are to follow. This is understandable. Is is ok to avoid having children (intent), but one cannot do so by taking action to change ones fertility or the nature of the marital act (action)–perfect. NFP does not alter the nature of the act or require action to change ones fertility. I, like you, believe this quite clear and shows the difference between NFP and ABC.

But…confusion sets in when people try to explain** why **altering the act or taking action to change fertility is wrong. We start to see phrases like “open to life” or “rejection of fertility” or “no action is taken with NFP” etc. We see intent being mixed in with explanation…“when you are contracept you are essentially saying …” In my experience, here is where the confusion comes. The rule is clear, there is a clear difference between abc and nfp. But the explanation of why is where the conversation so often gets muddled. And unlike many CAFers, I do not believe that those who just don’t get it are necessarily being willfully obstinate and justifying their own sin (although this may be true is some cases).

Your explanation of the invitation is exactly what people use to explain NFP as moral. I’m surprised you can’t see the logic of the argument.

NO, you HAVEN"T “taken an action”. Using NFP is NOT an actual “action”. Each and every act of sex needs to be open, but one isn’t required to do it every single day. There are reasons to not have sex-- sickness, exhaustion, kids being around, etc. To avoid sex because one doesn’t desire the ACTUAL OUTCOME of it (children) makes complete moral sense.