"Open to Life" and "Intent" - NFP vs ABC

[vluvski]

A lot of well-meaning NFP supporters throw around terms like “open to life” and “intent” without realizing this is actually detrimental to the case for NFP. Many people also confuse procreation with reproduction. I find this extremely frustrating.

The differentiation between NFP and ABC is about none of these. When I get married in several months, the act of sex will be a complete offering of myself to my new husband because it will be free of any means deliberately used to limit the natural outcome of sex. If any part of one spouse (ie fertility) is withheld or rejected, how can it be a complete giving of self?

Consider that Jesus’ death on the cross is the ultimate “unitive and procreative” act. In being united with His bride the Church, He gave of himself completely in order to give us eternal life. We don’t even have to do that much. We’re called to participate in the marital embrace free of contraceptives or barriers because God has called us to do so, just as it was His Will that Jesus be crucified and die. Why did Christ die? Because God asked it of Him. Why didn’t He take Himself down from the cross? Because it would have been against God’s will (in other words, wrong).

A couple can selfishly or even legitimately practice NFP without being open to life in their hearts; another couple can habitually use a condom and be fully open to the possibility of a surprise pregnancy when the condom fails. This is why the ‘intent’ and ‘open to life’ arguments are inherently flawed.

As Catholics we believe in absolute truth, and there are some things that have a right way and a wrong way. When it comes to sex and marriage, the only “right way” to have sex is between a husband and wife without involving contraception or barrier methods or any otherwise prohibited action.

Some things are just morally wrong even if the “intent” is the same. Consider a grandfather with severe health issues. He takes his own life because he does not want to be a burden to his children and grandchildren. Was his intent good? Well, yes, sort of, in that it wasn’t selfish. But suicide is always wrong. I bet people could come up with a million other ‘right ways’ or ‘wrong ways’ to limit the amount of perceived burden on the children and grandchildren.

Why is it so hard for some to see that this same right way/wrong way can also apply to the NFP vs ABC argument. ABC is wrong because… it is wrong, it is not God’s will. The Church and promoters of NFP can come up with all the words and explanations they want, but in the end it’s wrong for the same reason murder is wrong and taking the Lord’s name in vain is wrong and disrespecting your parents is wrong. It is just wrong.

The action itself is inherently WRONG.

 

[setter]

vluvski:

A lot of well-meaning NFP supporters throw around terms like “open to life” and “intent” without realizing this is actually detrimental to the case for NFP. Many people also confuse procreation with reproduction. I find this extremely frustrating.

The differentiation between NFP and ABC is about none of these. When I get married in several months, the act of sex will be a complete offering of myself to my new husband because it will be free of any means deliberately used to limit the natural outcome of sex. If any part of one spouse (ie fertility) is withheld or rejected, how can it be a complete giving of self?

Consider that Jesus’ death on the cross is the ultimate “unitive and procreative” act. In being united with His bride the Church, He gave of himself completely in order to give us eternal life. We don’t even have to do that much. We’re called to participate in the marital embrace free of contraceptives or barriers because God has called us to do so, just as it was His Will that Jesus be crucified and die. Why did Christ die? Because God asked it of Him. Why didn’t He take Himself down from the cross? Because it would have been against God’s will (in other words, wrong).

A couple can selfishly or even legitimately practice NFP without being open to life in their hearts; another couple can habitually use a condom and be fully open to the possibility of a surprise pregnancy when the condom fails. This is why the ‘intent’ and ‘open to life’ arguments are inherently flawed.

As Catholics we believe in absolute truth, and there are some things that have a right way and a wrong way. When it comes to sex and marriage, the only “right way” to have sex is between a husband and wife without involving contraception or barrier methods or any otherwise prohibited action.

Some things are just morally wrong even if the “intent” is the same. Consider a grandfather with severe health issues. He takes his own life because he does not want to be a burden to his children and grandchildren. Was his intent good? Well, yes, sort of, in that it wasn’t selfish. But suicide is always wrong. I bet people could come up with a million other ‘right ways’ or ‘wrong ways’ to limit the amount of perceived burden on the children and grandchildren.

Why is it so hard for some to see that this same right way/wrong way can also apply to the NFP vs ABC argument. ABC is wrong because… it is wrong, it is not God’s will. The Church and promoters of NFP can come up with all the words and explanations they want, but in the end it’s wrong for the same reason murder is wrong and taking the Lord’s name in vain is wrong and disrespecting your parents is wrong. It is just wrong.

The action itself is inherently WRONG.

You go girl!

 

[manualman]

I’m fine with that approach. But I’m the choir, so I’m not so hard to convince.

Others still need to learn that God never sets arbitrary rules for us that restrict our freedom uneccessarily. If something is morally wrong, it is wrong not because it crosses the arbitrary will of a distant and uncaring God, it is wrong because it in someway damages us and diminishes our ability to love and receive HIS love.

Thus, it IS appropriate to discuss the ways in which contraception, in addition to being against the commands of Christ’s church, do real damage to the couple practising it. That damage is manifested by the couple developing an attitude about children that is sometimes described as ‘closed.’

I especially like to point out how those who practice NFP experience something VERY different than those who use condoms or such. The NFP couple attempting to avoid pregnancy must abstain during the fertile times, which just happen to be when the woman feels friskiest! If you are married, you don’t need me to tell you that you think REAL hard about just why it is you are trying to avoid pregnancy during those days of abstinence. Thus, NFP retains the instinctual nudge God gave us all towards making babies.

Contraception, on the other hand severs the link between pleasure and procreation. Those who practice it are cut off from the instinct God gave us that nudges us to reconsider having more kids. That separation tends to make people gluttonous and selfish in their attitudes about sex. Spend a few minutes watching TV sometime and you’ll see what I mean.

 

[cynic]

manualman:

Contraception, on the other hand severs the link between pleasure and procreation.

that is what nfp does by separating those things in the mind, the couple are having sex despite an express desire to not have it result in children.

It is not interfering with the body like contraception, but that is only half the arguement against contraception. The other half is that sexual desire in isolation from the desire to have children is “lust”. Which if we should believe that, is exactly what nfp practicioners are guilty of.

 

[jegow]

vluvski:

A couple can selfishly or even legitimately practice NFP without being open to life in their hearts; another couple can habitually use a condom and be fully open to the possibility of a surprise pregnancy when the condom fails. This is why the ‘intent’ and ‘open to life’ arguments are inherently flawed.

In regards to the ‘intent’ and ‘open to life’ arguments being flawed, I think that you are on to something. However, the problem with your example is that there are a couple of flaws. First, there is difference in intention from a couple that is practicing NFP legitimately from the couple who is practicing it selfishly. The legitimately practicing couple has an intention to be open to life but to abstain from those fertile periods of the female spouse to avoid if possible a conception due to legitimate or just reasons for doing so. The selfishly practicing couple is avoiding those fertile moments for the same reason but they have no legitimate or just reasons for doing so; in fact, since they are abusing a system that is used for good it is also true that they are not open to life. If they had no legitimate reasons to use it and they were open to life they should not be abusing NFP. The couple that practices contraception shares the same motive as those who abuse NFP; they are never open to the conjugal act as it being open to life. You can’t say that are open life if the condom fails – that was never their disposition in the get go. If they do conceive surprisingly they may accept the fact that they conceived but in retrospect they did not really want their conjugal union to be that fruitful just pleasure filled, and hence the use of contraceptives. So you should not be saying that a couple that is surprised that they conceived (despite their efforts to prevent it) had the same intention or openness to life as a couple that is always open to life whether they were legitimately and justly trying to avoid it for good reasons or trying to conceive without any measures to avoid fertile moments.

 

[steveandersen]

Frankly the NFP/ABC distinction is one that I’ve struggled with for decades.

Call me obtuse (you’re obtuse!)
But try as I might I still don’t get it.

 

[cynic]

//The legitimately practicing couple has an intention to be open to life but to abstain from those fertile periods of the female spouse to avoid if possible a conception due to legitimate or just reasons for doing so//what a contradiction.

 

[cynic]

\The legitimately practicing couple has an intention to be open to life but to abstain from those fertile periods of the female spouse to avoid if possible a conception due to legitimate or just reasons for doing so. .

what a contradiction.

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by manualman

Contraception, on the other hand severs the link between pleasure and procreation.

that is what nfp does by separating those things in the mind

, the couple are having sex despite an express desire to not have it result in children.
I am left wondering how you conclude that the NFP practicing couple seprate pleasure and procreation in their mind when attempting to regulate childbirth. Quite the opposite, and quite the opposite from ABC practicing couples. The NFP couple is strickly linking the procreative and unitive/pleasure aspect, and perhaps especially moreso when attempting to prayerfully limit pregnancy.

It is not interfering with the body like contraception, but that is only half the arguement against contraception. The other half is that sexual desire in isolation from the desire to have children is "lust"

. Which if we should believe that, is exactly what nfp practicioners are guilty of.
Again, your conclusion that NFP practicing couples are somehow segregating the two apsects (procreative and unitive) of responsible parenthood does not have any basis in the reality of couples who have been practicing NFP faithfully. Your conjecture seems to totally lacking in actual testimony (while not trying to minimize the sometimes exacting demand of self-sacrifice and acquired fortitude incumbent with NFP).

 

[fix]

vluvski:

A lot of well-meaning NFP supporters throw around terms like “open to life” and “intent” without realizing this is actually detrimental to the case for NFP. Many people also confuse procreation with reproduction. I find this extremely frustrating.

The differentiation between NFP and ABC is about none of these. When I get married in several months, the act of sex will be a complete offering of myself to my new husband because it will be free of any means deliberately used to limit the natural outcome of sex. If any part of one spouse (ie fertility) is withheld or rejected, how can it be a complete giving of self?

Consider that Jesus’ death on the cross is the ultimate “unitive and procreative” act. In being united with His bride the Church, He gave of himself completely in order to give us eternal life. We don’t even have to do that much. We’re called to participate in the marital embrace free of contraceptives or barriers because God has called us to do so, just as it was His Will that Jesus be crucified and die. Why did Christ die? Because God asked it of Him. Why didn’t He take Himself down from the cross? Because it would have been against God’s will (in other words, wrong).

A couple can selfishly or even legitimately practice NFP without being open to life in their hearts; another couple can habitually use a condom and be fully open to the possibility of a surprise pregnancy when the condom fails. This is why the ‘intent’ and ‘open to life’ arguments are inherently flawed.

As Catholics we believe in absolute truth, and there are some things that have a right way and a wrong way. When it comes to sex and marriage, the only “right way” to have sex is between a husband and wife without involving contraception or barrier methods or any otherwise prohibited action.

Some things are just morally wrong even if the “intent” is the same. Consider a grandfather with severe health issues. He takes his own life because he does not want to be a burden to his children and grandchildren. Was his intent good? Well, yes, sort of, in that it wasn’t selfish. But suicide is always wrong. I bet people could come up with a million other ‘right ways’ or ‘wrong ways’ to limit the amount of perceived burden on the children and grandchildren.

Why is it so hard for some to see that this same right way/wrong way can also apply to the NFP vs ABC argument. ABC is wrong because… it is wrong, it is not God’s will. The Church and promoters of NFP can come up with all the words and explanations they want, but in the end it’s wrong for the same reason murder is wrong and taking the Lord’s name in vain is wrong and disrespecting your parents is wrong. It is just wrong.

The action itself is inherently WRONG.

You are on to something, but I can quibble with a couple of your points. In short, I think it is both intention and the means that are at issue.

For example, a couple that contracepts for a good reason is still sinning. A couple that uses NFP with a* contraceptive* mindset is still sinning.

 

[Dubervilles]

Quite honestly I can say that if the choice for me was to never be intimate with my husband or to be “open to life”–sorry folks but I get celibacy would win…
Even when I have tried to convince myself that ABC is wrong–I can’t do it–I ABSOLUTELY can’t do it…
I can’t even read one of the posts about how wrong it is without laughing in my head…I’ve tried to convince myself I am evil for doing that…but quite frankly can’t do it.
That’s just me though…
Maybe if I was even open to the possibility of an ‘oops’ I would think about NFP–but until then…

 

[steveandersen]

fix:

…A couple that uses NFP with a* contraceptive* mindset is still sinning.

why else would you use it?

 

[Lorarose]

why else would you use it?

Exactly.
I’d like to hear from the op after the wedding, and after - oh say…about 6-8 pregnancies.
I wonder if the opinion will change when she goes years without sleep- cannot give quality to time to each child, cannot afford to continue to have more children, and finds herself in a constant state of crankiness and agitation because of all the noise and chaos.

Not everyone can properly handle large amounts of children. We all have our limits.

 

[John_Kearns]

Newbie here. I know what NFP is, but ABC? Thanks in advance for educating me.

 

[setter]

In regards to the ‘intent’ and ‘open to life’ arguments being flawed, I think that you are on to something. However, the problem with your example is that there are a couple of flaws. First, there is difference in intention from a couple that is practicing NFP legitimately from the couple who is practicing it selfishly.

I agree with this statement.

The legitimately practicing couple has an intention to be open to life but to abstain from those fertile periods of the female spouse to avoid if possible a conception due to legitimate or just reasons for doing so. The selfishly practicing couple is avoiding those fertile moments for the same reason but they have no legitimate or just reasons for doing so; in fact, since they are abusing a system that is used for good it is also true that they are not open to life. If they had no legitimate reasons to use it and they were open to life they should not be abusing NFP.

I would agree.

The couple that practices contraception shares the same motive as those who abuse NFP; they are never open to the conjugal act as it being open to life.

I find this too far a stretch. I believe that there is a fundamental difference in faith basis between couples utilize NFP and those Catholic couples who openly defy Church teaching and use ABC. Perhaps my bias, but even from the least motive the NFP practicing couple demonstrate a healthy fear of offending God, which is the “beginning of wisdom”.

You can’t say that are open life if the condom fails – that was never their disposition in the get go. If they do conceive surprisingly they may accept the fact that they conceived but in retrospect they did not really want their conjugal union to be that fruitful just pleasure filled, and hence the use of contraceptives.

So you should not be saying that a couple that is surprised that they conceived (despite their efforts to prevent it) had the same intention or openness to life as a couple that is always open to life whether they were legitimately and justly trying to avoid it for good reasons or trying to conceive without any measures to avoid fertile moments.

Again, I differentiate between poorly intended NFP practicing couples and those who use ABC.

 

[vluvski]

fix:

You are on to something, but I can quibble with a couple of your points. In short, I think it is both intention and the means that are at issue.

For example, a couple that contracepts for a good reason is still sinning. A couple that uses NFP with a* contraceptive* mindset is still sinning.

The contacepting couple with just reasons to avoid is sinning by using contraception. The couple using NFP inappropriately is not sinning by using NFP, but by being selfish or whatever.

jegow:

However, the problem with your example is that there are a couple of flaws. First, there is difference in intention from a couple that is practicing NFP legitimately from the couple who is practicing it selfishly.

Hey, I’m open to suggestions.

I guess I was thinking of a situation where the couple may have a legitimate reason to avoid, but would avoid even without that reason. For example, Jack and Jill want two kids, that’s it. Turns out, the second child has a disability and requires lots of attention and care. They have a good reason to avoid, but they weren’t really open to another child anyway.

If you make a distinction between the intent of a selfish vs legitimate practice of NFP, you must also make a distinction between those who use contraception for legitimate reasons and those who use it for selfish reasons.

My whole point is that NFP is never in itself the sin, while ABC (for contraceptive purposes) is always a sin regardless of the couples intent. The intent issue requires the application of a brand new set of moral standards that are separate from how the couple goes about carrying out this intent.

You can say the same thing of the couple who is eagerly open to life, but chooses in vitro due to fertility issues. Their intent was good, but the means was morally wrong.

 

[vluvski]

Lorarose:

Exactly.
I’d like to hear from the op after the wedding, and after - oh say…about 6-8 pregnancies.
I wonder if the opinion will change when she goes years without sleep- cannot give quality to time to each child, cannot afford to continue to have more children, and finds herself in a constant state of crankiness and agitation because of all the noise and chaos.

Not everyone can properly handle large amounts of children. We all have our limits.

I think you miss my point. That’s precisely why the Church teaches that a couple can legitimately practice NFP, which has a comparable or higher success rate than any form of ABC (artificial birth control) except removal of ovaries or castration, which are pretty drastic. I’m definitely not in the no NFP camp! I’m not even one of those who believes NFP is only justified when it is a choice between death and another child.

On a side note, practicing ecological breastfeeding provides a two to two and a half year average spacing of children that helps minimizing mommy burnout.

 

[Halo]

As a person who has practiced NFP all of our married life, I just would like to encourage couples to read Humanae Vitae.
There is so much joy in accepting Gods Will and in sacrifice. “A Clear Conscience is a Continual Feast”

 

[setter]

John Kearns:

Newbie here. I know what NFP is, but ABC? Thanks in advance for educating me.

Artifical Birth Control.

 

[fix]

vluvski:

The contacepting couple with just reasons to avoid is sinning by using contraception. The couple using NFP inappropriately is not sinning by using NFP, but by being selfish or whatever.

Contraception is always wrong. We agree. No matter they intent, the means are always wrong.

The NFP coulpe could be using NFP, a licit means, simply to avoid children for selfish reasons. I would say the means are licit, but the intention is wrong. So, I am not saying NFP is sinful, but the reasons it is employed are wrong and the couple have a contraceptive mindset. That may be sinful.

This may help explain what I am trying to say:

A further point to be made is that, even if couples do not impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse, (i.e., even if they do not contracept), they may well be engaging in their acts of intercourse with a mentality opposed to the good of children. Such a mentality (some call it a “contraceptive mentality”) is utterly contrary to the meaning of marital love. It can develop even in a couple that practices natural means of birth regulation if the couple begins to see fertility as a disease to be avoided at all costs. While engaging in an act of intercourse with an anti-child mentality is not the moral equivalent of engaging in contracepted intercourse, it springs from the same disordered view of fertility and may result in a sort of rebellion against the goods of marriage.

In order to determine, therefore, what constitutes a violation of the procreative meaning of intercourse, we must not only ask what method is being used to regulate birth (means) but what is our intention, our motivation, our attitude toward the goods of marriage? In Humanae Vitae Pope Paul VI refers to the inseparability of the unitive and procreative meanings of intercourse. Since these two meanings of the act are truly inseparable, contraception wars against both. Contraception is a wholesale violation of the meaning of marital love. We have arrived, therefore, at an even broader understanding of the “contraceptive act”: any act of intercourse that separates or opposes the procreative and unitive goods of marital sex.3
omsoul.com/pamview.php?idnum=153