NFP?

[PaulinVA]

My wife and I are posed this question frequently when we are a lead couple for marriage preparation.

Yes, the end is the same. The means are very different. Here is an analogy that may help understanding.

These are the means (A and B). They both have the same end. One is a terrible evil, the other is good. One takes away from God what belongs to Him. The other accepts His plan for life. The means are so different that one is always wrong, and the other means is always right.

Dan

Dan, respectfully, I’m not buying it. Let me say that my wife and I have been practicing NFP for 17 years or so.

The end is not having children this cycle. I can use ABC and not conceive a child, or I can abstain during Phase II and not conceive a child. The means are different but the end is the same. The grandma analogy doesn’t really fit here.

Why does the Church say that actively avoiding the procreative and unitive act to avoid procreation is licit? If I have a serious, valid reason to avoid conception, and I am avoiding conception, why does it matter so much how I’m doing it?

The argument that I’m using our knowledge of the natural cycles of the body to avoid conception is somehow different than using our knowledge of how to create a barrier (as an example) just seems like grasping at straws.

Let’s face it, there’s more possibility of conception on day 18 with a barrier method than there is on day 25 with no barrier.

I’ve been trying to understand this for 20 years.

 

[nova147]

Then how do I understand CCC 2369 if its not the same?

I just do not understand HV 16 if you can explain it please do.

The heart of the matter to me is what is the intent of NFP used to space births. I see it as using knowledge of the natural world not for both ends of marriage but only the service of one the other is excluded. Knowledge makes an individual responsable for his/her actions. True abstince embraces, both we can not afford another child then we do not have sex until we can afford another one. Therefore procreation is not rejected at the expense of the union.

Two thoughts: first, you might take this query to Apologetics. The folks around there are more versed in the Cathecism, etc than some of us here (myself included!).

Second, it seems to me (from this post specifically) that your biggest concern with NFP is using it to space children. What of the couple who faces serious physical consequences if there is another child? Are they to risk life and health or abstain indefinately?

God gave us knowledge of our bodies to help us. The Church, in Her wisdom, has deemed NFP to be a morally licit means of trying to avoid pregnancy in serious situations.

MJ

 

[Polaris]

Two thoughts: first, you might take this query to Apologetics. The folks around there are more versed in the Cathecism, etc than some of us here (myself included!).

Second, it seems to me (from this post specifically) that your biggest concern with NFP is using it to space children. What of the couple who faces serious physical consequences if there is another child? Are they to risk life and health or abstain indefinately?

God gave us knowledge of our bodies to help us. The Church, in Her wisdom, has deemed NFP to be a morally licit means of trying to avoid pregnancy in serious situations.

MJ

I did post it there it was moved.

Yes they should abstain indefinately, they are risking her health NFP may be 99% but its not 100%.

 

[eponymic]

DOING something to prevent the possibility of new life.

Abstaining is not DOING. Are we obliged to have sex every night? Do you think abstaining is a sin?

“Bless me Father for I have sinned. My spouse and I abstained from sex three times this week.” —KCT

In other threads, I’ve stated, and still maintain, that inaction is as morally culpable as action. If you choose not to help out somebody in need, is that morally okay because you’re “not doing”? You did nothing to aggravate the situation, but you chose not to help by choosing to do nothing. I agree that there is no moral obligation to have sex (see my post immediately preceding the reply to you) but deciding to avoid sex on the basis of fertility is an action (or inaction) to prevent the possibility of new life, and by your definition, is contraception.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Then how do I understand CCC 2369 if its not the same?

Good questions.

2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”

2369 refers to the conjugal act, whereas 2363 refers to marriage. The conjugal act and marriage are two different things, which is why the catechism uses the two terms, ‘marriage’, and ‘conjugal act’.

How is 2369 interpreted? Our requirement is to safeguard the unitive and creative aspects of each and every conjugal act that we choose to engage in. That is, there must be no act associated with it that robs it of either of these two attributes. If we choose not to have relations at a particular time, there is no way to rob these aspects from a conjugal act, since one does not exist. If we choose to engage in conjugal activity, then we are bound by 2369. 2369 in no way demands that we have sex, during fertile, or during infertile times. This is not even implied.

I just do not understand HV 16 if you can explain it please do.

I read HV 16 and it appears to speak for itself. Which part of it do you need help with?

The heart of the matter to me is what is the intent of NFP used to space births. I see it as using knowledge of the natural world not for both ends of marriage but only the service of one the other is excluded. Knowledge makes an individual responsable for his/her actions. True abstince embraces, both we can not afford another child then we do not have sex until we can afford another one. Therefore procreation is not rejected at the expense of the union.

I spent some time with this paragraph, but was not sure that I fully understood you. Are you asking what licit reasons there are to space births?

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Also in action can be sin take your grandmother dying reference. She chooses to abstain from food.

Reason A She gets violently ill and causes extreme pain.

Reason B She wishes to die quicker.

Again one is a sin the other is not with intent at it core like you mention, and I believe in but have a hard time explaining. The intent of NFP for having children is ok but as a spacing method is a sin to me.

I think that I understand you better now. I believe that you are asking when is it licit to use NFP to space births?

The Church has taught that NFP may be used to space births if necessary for the real benefit of existing children. If there is real and significant risk to the welfare of existing children, then NFP may be used. The Church does not teach that children must be made to materially suffer for the benefit of new siblings.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The end is not having children this cycle. I can use ABC and not conceive a child, or I can abstain during Phase II and not conceive a child. The means are different but the end is the same. The grandma analogy doesn’t really fit here.

I do not see how it does not apply. As in your example, the end is the same, and the means were different. The ‘end’ is that Grandma goes on her merry way to heaven. Its the same end for both means. You’ll need to explain better for me to understand.

Why does the Church say that actively avoiding the procreative and unitive act to avoid procreation is licit? If I have a serious, valid reason to avoid conception, and I am avoiding conception, why does it matter so much how I’m doing it?

That is the flawed ‘the ends justify the means’ argument. The ends never justify the means. The means must justify themselves, i.e. they cannot be inherently immoral. NFP is not, ABC is (inherently immoral).

The argument that I’m using our knowledge of the natural cycles of the body to avoid conception is somehow different than using our knowledge of how to create a barrier (as an example) just seems like grasping at straws.

If you believe the ends justify whatever means you wish to use to achieve the ends, your conclusion is justified. But, the ends do not justify the means.

I’ve been trying to understand this for 20 years.

Please let us continue the conversation. Thanks!

Dan

 

[actorgirl]

I just don’t get it. My Proddy mind can’t grasp it. It just seems like a loophole

well, I can kinda understand BC Pills and the notion that a woman may become pregnant and result in a miscarriage. But, condoms, nope. just don’t get it.

Spacing kids, open to life, is it a selfish reason faints

 

[agapewolf]

A Christopher West “ism”…

If you can understand the difference between killing grandma and waiting until she dies naturally

then you can understand the difference between contracepting and waiting until you are infertile.

There is nothing wrong with “not” having sex.

Let’s isolate it… what would the actual sinful act be? the observing of the fertile signs? don’t think so

 

[Polaris]

No I am not asking what licit reasons are.

Ok let’s try this:

The purpose of the conjugal act must have two components:

1. Procreation, as I understand it openness to life
2. The secondary and lesser goal is the Union of the husband and wife.

The purpose of NFP for having children maintains both of these purposes. You are using a tool that reinforces both of these goals.

NFP used for spacing is the improper use of this tool. It using knowledge and saying we are not open to life. Both goals are not maintained. This is the inconsistency I see. How can it be defended?

My problem with HV 16 and 14 contradicts eachother.

I understand the ends do not justify the means, I also understand, which is apparently lost on the church is the means do not justify the ends. If the ends only serve one of the two purposes the church maintains must be present then that end is wrong. What are the ends of NFP used for spacing. You say union…good, what about procreation? NFP for spacing is 99% against it.

I hope this makes a little more sense.

 

[Em_in_FL]

No I am not asking what licit reasons are.

Ok let’s try this:

The purpose of the conjugal act must have two components:

1. Procreation, as I understand it openness to life
2. The secondary and lesser goal is the Union of the husband and wife.

The purpose of NFP for having children maintains both of these purposes. You are using a tool that reinforces both of these goals.

You’re correct in saying that the conjugal act must have 2 components… but it is incorrect to suggest one of these components is “lesser” than the other.

NFP used for spacing is the improper use of this tool. It using knowledge and saying we are not open to life. Both goals are not maintained. This is the inconsistency I see. How can it be defended?

My problem with HV 16 and 14 contradicts eachother.

I understand the ends do not justify the means, I also understand, which is apparently lost on the church is the means do not justify the ends. If the ends only serve one of the two purposes the church maintains must be present then that end is wrong. What are the ends of NFP used for spacing. You say union…good, what about procreation? NFP for spacing is 99% against it.

I hope this makes a little more sense.

Here’s a quote from HV11… (bolded emphasis mine)

1. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, “noble and worthy,”[11] and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.[12]

What this says is that God has naturally designed a woman’s cycle to have an infertile period… so because of this natural, God-given design there is no need to use artificial contraception (“each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.”)… God gives us that natural rhythm as a gift.

(continued on next post)

 

[Em_in_FL]

And from HV16… (emphasis mine)

1. To this teaching of the Church on conjugal morals, the objection is made today, as we observed earlier (no. 3), that it is the prerogative of the human intellect to dominate the energies offered by irrational nature and to orientate them towards an end conformable to the good of man. Now, some may ask: in the present case, is it not reasonable in many circumstances to have recourse to artificial birth control if, thereby, we secure the harmony and peace of the family, and better conditions for the education of the children already born? To this question it is necessary to reply with clarity: the Church is the first to praise and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so closely associates the rational creature with his Creator; but she affirms that this must be done with respect for the order established by God.

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, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.[20]

The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.

Can you specifically explain where you’re having a difficult understanding?

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Dan, respectfully, I’m not buying it. Let me say that my wife and I have been practicing NFP for 17 years or so.

The end is not having children this cycle. I can use ABC and not conceive a child, or I can abstain during Phase II and not conceive a child. The means are different but the end is the same. The grandma analogy doesn’t really fit here.

Why does the Church say that actively avoiding the procreative and unitive act to avoid procreation is licit? If I have a serious, valid reason to avoid conception, and I am avoiding conception, why does it matter so much how I’m doing it?

The argument that I’m using our knowledge of the natural cycles of the body to avoid conception is somehow different than using our knowledge of how to create a barrier (as an example) just seems like grasping at straws.

Let’s face it, there’s more possibility of conception on day 18 with a barrier method than there is on day 25 with no barrier.

I’ve been trying to understand this for 20 years.

Look at the marital acts individually. Every time a couple participates in the marital act the procreative and unitive aspects of the act have to be present. The procreative aspect does not = being fertile, it just means the part of intercourse that allows for procreation is intact. If you verify every act in NFP the couple is following this teaching, the procreative and unitive aspects are present. If you verify every act with an ABC couple, the procreative aspect is never there.

I think the main confusion is when people think that having intercourse during an infertile period is not including the procreative aspect. The Church says that procreative and unitive must be there, and it also says that infertile couples can marry and participate in the marital embrace. The only way for both of these to be true has to be that the Church recognizes that including the procreative aspect does not = being fertile at the moment. The Church also says that with ABC the couple is not including the procreative aspect. It doesn’t matter whether the woman is fertile or infertile while taking ABC, the problem is the ABC itself. The ABC is mutilating the procreative aspect of the marital embrace, abstaining is not mutilating anything in the marital embrace, in fact there isn’t even a marital embrace to mutilate if the couple is abstaining.

Its not about who has a better chance of avoiding (or a higher failure rate), its about who is participating in a wholesome marital embrace and who is “mutilating” the act to get what they want out of it and leave out what they don’t. Its all about the act itself (and whether the couple is doing something to the act to remove eithre aspect), not the reasons for avoiding, not the effectiveness, etc.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Look at the marital acts individually. Every time a couple participates in the marital act the procreative and unitive aspects of the act have to be present. The procreative aspect does not = being fertile, it just means the part of intercourse that allows for procreation is intact. If you verify every act in NFP the couple is following this teaching, the procreative and unitive aspects are present. If you verify every act with an ABC couple, the procreative aspect is never there.

I think the main confusion is when people think that having intercourse during an infertile period is not including the procreative aspect. The Church says that procreative and unitive must be there, and it also says that infertile couples can marry and participate in the marital embrace. The only way for both of these to be true has to be that the Church recognizes that including the procreative aspect does not = being fertile at the moment. The Church also says that with ABC the couple is not including the procreative aspect. It doesn’t matter whether the woman is fertile or infertile while taking ABC, the problem is the ABC itself. The ABC is mutilating the procreative aspect of the marital embrace, abstaining is not mutilating anything in the marital embrace, in fact there isn’t even a marital embrace to mutilate if the couple is abstaining.

:clapping::clapping:
You said it beautifully!

 

[PaulinVA]

I do not see how it does not apply. As in your example, the end is the same, and the means were different. The ‘end’ is that Grandma goes on her merry way to heaven. Its the same end for both means. You’ll need to explain better for me to understand.

Please let us continue the conversation. Thanks!

Dan

Dan,

The ends are two different things for Grandma. One end is natural death, and the other end is un natural, hastened death. Two different ends, two different means.

In the conception example, it’s the same end - no conception this month. I can achieve it by abstaining during phase II, not abstaining but no conception, or using an ABC method.

LIke I said, there is zero possibility of pregnancy on day 25 for most women in most cycles - how can the act on that day be considered unitive and procreative? Using a barrier method on day 18 has a greater chance of conception.

I understand the idea that some things are always morally wrong, and I understand that partly it’s the mentality of the birth control culture and not just the act.

When people are using NFP to avoid pregnancy, the goal is TO ENSURE that each act is not procreative. Right?

 

[LittleDeb]

:clapping::clapping:
You said it beautifully!

I agree!! That is why I encourage not using the terms “procreative” and “reproductive” interchangeably.

To tell an infertile couple that their union is not procreative because it is not reproductive is very hurtful. Infertile couples are some of the most procreative people I know!

 

[LittleDeb]

NFP used for spacing is the improper use of this tool. It using knowledge and saying we are not open to life. Both goals are not maintained. This is the inconsistency I see. How can it be defended?

My problem with HV 16 and 14 contradicts eachother.

I understand the ends do not justify the means, I also understand, which is apparently lost on the church is the means do not justify the ends. If the ends only serve one of the two purposes the church maintains must be present then that end is wrong. What are the ends of NFP used for spacing. You say union…good, what about procreation? NFP for spacing is 99% against it.

I hope this makes a little more sense.

I think I see where you are coming from. Perhaps I can offer a different analogy to help.

I’ve often said that the only real difference between charting for fertility and just winging it is this: "The NFP couple looks out the window in joyful anticipation of their guest. The wing it couple is happy to be able to just joyfully wait for the knock at the door."

How this translates in real life in NFP household: "Okay junior, you’re doubling up in your brother’s top bunk. You’re old enough now so we know that you two won’t kill each other so that is the plan. We can afford the bunk bed so you two at least have personal sleeping space. Come on let’s get moving. No grumbling, because remember your dad and I invited this guest. We hope she or he gets to stay forever.

How this translates in the just wing it household: “Come in, Come in! We have a guest room ready and waiting for you! It might be small but it is still all yours. We hope you get to stay with us forever.”

Then there are the other situations of total abstinence by mutual consent or because one spouse forces it on the other

How this translates to the total abstinence household: “We have very serious reasons that we cannot allow new guests in our home. We have to close the blinds, turn off the lights, and put up a ‘quarantined, no vacancy’ sign.” (By mutual consent–“we are very sad that this is the way it has to be.”) (By force–one spouse put up the sign the other is sad and rejected.)

Then there are the contraceptive couples: “We have erected a giant wall of latex around our home. Yes it can be suffocating at times, but we need to be in total control. We have posted a sign that says, ‘If you manage to break through our defenses we might let you in. But we also might come at you with a knife and cut you into pieces’.”

And finally to end on a positive note, there are the infertile and other adoptive couples: “Our door is wide open. Anyone who wants to come in is welcome. In fact we go find people in desperate situations who need a home. We have been to the saddest and most desperate places of humanity in our search. If our home and income can handle it, we’ll take anyone.”

Does that help?

 

[LittleDeb]

Oh I forgot post-menopausal couples! “Our home is now so remote we don’t think anyone will be stopping by. But we haven’t burned down the house, so the chance is still there.”

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Dan,

The ends are two different things for Grandma. One end is natural death, and the other end is un natural, hastened death. Two different ends, two different means.

Paul,

You are now combining the means and the end into a single desciption.

Death is the end, the result. When you say ‘hastened death’, you now have included the ‘means’ that bring about the death. Is not ‘unnaturally hastening the death’, an action? Actions are the means. It is something that you do, not something that results.

A different example. Let us say that I am a tomato grower and I want my tomatoes to be ripe. I can ripen my tomatoes placing them in storage until they are ripe, or I can also expose them to a chemical that quickly ripens them. (Most tomatoes you get from the store are artificially ripened) These are the means by which I may ripen my tomatoes

If a customer goes to the store, he may ask for “naturally ripened tomatoes.” He wants ripe tomatoes (the ‘end’), but he is also specifying the ‘means’ in which they were ripened. Does that help?

In the conception example, it’s the same end - no conception this month. I can achieve it by abstaining during phase II, not abstaining but no conception, or using an ABC method.

Yes, I agree, the end is the same. The means to achieve the end are different. Means include our actions. If our actions to achieve the same end are different, then we are using different means.

LIke I said, there is zero possibility of pregnancy on day 25 for most women in most cycles - how can the act on that day be considered unitive and procreative? Using a barrier method on day 18 has a greater chance of conception.

You did not mean to contradict yourself, but your first sentence really says, “Most of the time there is zero possibility”. If you understand probability, you will see that this is not a very meaningful statement. Kind of like, “If it does not rain today, there is a zero percent chance of rain.” There are scads of examples of women conceiving at any time of their cycle. In my family, my sister had one of those ‘miracle’ babies. You will see reference to them in these forums. PenitentMan is dealing with one such blessing now. Nobody who knows about reproductive theory says that if sex occurs, there can be a zero percent chance of conception.

Now, having said that, I will suggest it really does not matter. When dealing with morality, the results do not matter. It is what we do, and why we have chosen to do it, that matter. Where some people get confused is that the courts of the state concern themselves with the results of our actions. That is necessary to deliver some form of justice here on earth. God cares about our intent and our actions. He is able to deliver justice without considering the random nature of results.

I understand the idea that some things are always morally wrong, and I understand that partly it’s the mentality of the birth control culture and not just the act.

The Church has taught for practically since the beginning that the morality of any human action is related to the act itself, the intention it was done for, and the circumstances surrounding the act. Some acts are inherently wrong. Others are wrong simply because of our intent. Others are wrong, not because what we intend, or do, is wrong, but because we do it where/when it is inappropriate.

The issues of NFP and ABC rarely need the consideration of the circumstance. The morality almost always surrounds the acts themselves (what we do), and the intent (why we do it).

When people are using NFP to avoid pregnancy, the goal is TO ENSURE that each act is not procreative. Right?

Absolutely right. That is intent.

In summary, NFP and ABC can be used for the same intent, that is, for the same end. (I use ‘can’, not in a moral sense, but in a ‘possible’ sense, that is, it can be done, but it may not be right). If postponing pregnancy is against God’s will, then it does not matter how (the means) we do it. We are sinning, by desiring (intending) to do something other than God’s will.

NFP and ABC actions are different. If these two different actions are used for the same purpose, we describe this situation as two different means to achieve the same end. Some means are inherently immoral. ABC is inherently immoral. When we describe the moral error of “the ends are being used to justifying the means”, what we are saying is that the means are unjustified, but we have applied the moral error of saying, “what I am trying to accomplish is good, so no matter how I do it, it is good.”

Sincerely, Dan

 

[HailMary]

viditalk.com/hli/2/

viditalk.com/hli/3/