V
vluvski
Guest
Right, we’re saying exactly the same thing.
What I was trying to get at is that the NFP vs ABC debate is comingled with the intent debate, which has led a lot of people to misconceptions about why NFP is wrong.
- Status
What I was trying to get at is that the NFP vs ABC debate is comingled with the intent debate, which has led a lot of people to misconceptions about why NFP is wrong.
F
fix
Guest
Contraception is intrinsically wrong. Avoiding children, for serious reasons is not wrong. The difference is the means used to get to the end and the reason for using the means.why else would you use it?
M
manualman
Guest
Cynic, you aren’t listening.
It is quite clear and I’ve said it plainly. The NFP practising couple must MONTHLY come face to face with a sacrifice in order to avoid pregnancy. In couple with a healthy sprititual life, that regular God - given nudge inherent to our sexuality is a counter weight to the selfishness (money is better than kids) that resides in all of us as a result of fallen human nature.
The contracepting couple gives up nothing. They chop off the nudge God installed in each of us that is intended to help overcome our selfishness and use it simply for indulgent pleasure instead. Thus, what God intended to be something that would help us overcome our selfishness (kids surely do that!) instead is subverted into an act OF selfishness.
Don’t get me wrong, sex is SUPPOSED to be passionate, enjoyable and unitive. And it is, even when the couple isn’t in a fertile time. But when you contracept, the passion is misused and slowly turns to selfish lust instead.
IMO, the true disservice is done by those who claim that NFP isn’t hard to practice and that thsoe using it to avoid have just as much sex life as contracepting couples (or more). While possibly true due to enhanced communication and anticipation, IMO this sets up false expectations and the couple becomes doubly depressed for a while at how frustrating it is to abstain when you REALLY don’t want to! In reality, that difficult sacrifice is WHY NFP is OK in Catholic morality!
I’m saddened that people actually laugh at God’s beautiful design for our sexuality.
P.S. For the record, I’m 35, married 6 years chose to have 2 kids so far and practised NFP the whole time. Took well over a year to practice joyfully, instead of sullen obedience. Figured out most of the above through direct experience, not book learning.
It is quite clear and I’ve said it plainly. The NFP practising couple must MONTHLY come face to face with a sacrifice in order to avoid pregnancy. In couple with a healthy sprititual life, that regular God - given nudge inherent to our sexuality is a counter weight to the selfishness (money is better than kids) that resides in all of us as a result of fallen human nature.
The contracepting couple gives up nothing. They chop off the nudge God installed in each of us that is intended to help overcome our selfishness and use it simply for indulgent pleasure instead. Thus, what God intended to be something that would help us overcome our selfishness (kids surely do that!) instead is subverted into an act OF selfishness.
Don’t get me wrong, sex is SUPPOSED to be passionate, enjoyable and unitive. And it is, even when the couple isn’t in a fertile time. But when you contracept, the passion is misused and slowly turns to selfish lust instead.
IMO, the true disservice is done by those who claim that NFP isn’t hard to practice and that thsoe using it to avoid have just as much sex life as contracepting couples (or more). While possibly true due to enhanced communication and anticipation, IMO this sets up false expectations and the couple becomes doubly depressed for a while at how frustrating it is to abstain when you REALLY don’t want to! In reality, that difficult sacrifice is WHY NFP is OK in Catholic morality!
I’m saddened that people actually laugh at God’s beautiful design for our sexuality.
P.S. For the record, I’m 35, married 6 years chose to have 2 kids so far and practised NFP the whole time. Took well over a year to practice joyfully, instead of sullen obedience. Figured out most of the above through direct experience, not book learning.
F
fix
Guest
But it is not simply about having large amounts of children. It is about spacing, or avoiding, births using moral means and good intentions.
J
josea
Guest
Last year I posted something regarding this issue, here it is again, perhaps it helps.
**
*
In the last year I have been thinking a lot about the difference between NFP and ABC.
This is what I saw: There is a REAL and fundamental difference between the two mentalities.
*The difficulty for those who do not see the difference lays in the erroneous thought that NFP is a method to avoid having children and enjoy only one aspect of the act rejecting the reproductive one. Couples that for serious reasons can not have any more children, or may postpone the birth of a child, might be engaged in the type of relations that the Church allows as licit: having sexual relations when nature makes impossible reproduction, as it occurs in the case of menopause, natural sterility etc… *
In the same way the Church allows as licit to have sexual relations when we know that reproduction can not take place and we limit ourselves to those times.
ABC it is not the same. It is a different act: ABC actively renders the sexual act sterile; it is not the same kind of act as the one done in infertile times.
*Limiting sexual relations to periods of time that we KNOW infertile does not act against the nature of the act. *
**
I think the confusion comes when the Church condemns as a sinful the use of NFP when no serious reason alleged. In this case the act is open to life and by itself not sinful; the sin is to make the decision of avoiding reproduction without having a serious reason. Those are two different things that easily get confused.
Avoiding reproduction, therefore, is allowed only when serious reasons are present and there is not an active mean used before, during or after the act thought to directly avoid conception.
**
Regards,
Jose*
**
*
In the last year I have been thinking a lot about the difference between NFP and ABC.
This is what I saw: There is a REAL and fundamental difference between the two mentalities.
*The difficulty for those who do not see the difference lays in the erroneous thought that NFP is a method to avoid having children and enjoy only one aspect of the act rejecting the reproductive one. Couples that for serious reasons can not have any more children, or may postpone the birth of a child, might be engaged in the type of relations that the Church allows as licit: having sexual relations when nature makes impossible reproduction, as it occurs in the case of menopause, natural sterility etc… *
In the same way the Church allows as licit to have sexual relations when we know that reproduction can not take place and we limit ourselves to those times.
ABC it is not the same. It is a different act: ABC actively renders the sexual act sterile; it is not the same kind of act as the one done in infertile times.
*Limiting sexual relations to periods of time that we KNOW infertile does not act against the nature of the act. *
**
I think the confusion comes when the Church condemns as a sinful the use of NFP when no serious reason alleged. In this case the act is open to life and by itself not sinful; the sin is to make the decision of avoiding reproduction without having a serious reason. Those are two different things that easily get confused.
Avoiding reproduction, therefore, is allowed only when serious reasons are present and there is not an active mean used before, during or after the act thought to directly avoid conception.
**
Regards,
Jose*
V
vluvski
Guest
Yeah, thanks Jose, I think we’re pretty much on the same page.
There are two separate issues when discussing the desire to avoid pregnancy. One is the source/reason/intent, and the other is the means used to achieve the goal.
I think my first post over-emphasized the need for obedience to the Church’s stance that contraception is intrinsically evil, and that wasn’t what I originally set out to do. Discussing why it is wrong is certainly a necessary approach, but these discussions tend to blend the two separate issues which only leads to more confusion and more ammunition when others challenge the difference between NFP and ABC.
Manualman, I really like the way you put that part about the “nudge.” I’ve never heard it explained quite that way before, and it doesn’t blur the distinction either. Thanks.
F
fix
Guest
Perhaps you can elaborate a little bit on why you think the issues of intent and means confuse the issue?
From my experience many folks complain that both NFP and contraception are the same thing so why bother with NFP? That line of reasoning says to me people are automatically concluding it is necessary to have as few children as possible. In fact, the beef against NFP often comes from the right side of the spectrum because many NFPers have as few kids as the contraception users and frankly they may have a valid point.
The point of NFP is not only that it is a licit means to space births, but that spacing is not simply an automatic thing we do.
What do you think?
V
vluvski
Guest
I am hesitant to call it a “contraceptive mindset” for the same reason that I don’t like using “open to life” or “intent” to argue about how NFP is fundamentally different from ABC.
Let me point out that the group I have in mind is primarily the one that claims, “Well, if NFP is ok by the Church and it is so effective and they can limit their family size, how is that different from an ABC couple?” This is where we find such sarcastic comments as “So God can overcome infertility but He can’t overcome a thin shield of latex?” or “NFP is just Catholic contraception.”
Language that attributes this so-called contraceptive mentality to NFP users gives some the mistaken idea that either contraceptives are ok because NFP is ok or wonder if I can sin by using NFP anyway why bother putting in the effort to learn and practice NFP.
On the other end of the spectrum, those who favor no form of family planning or require only the most grave circumstance for legitimate practice are also confusing the intent with the act. The need for distinction applies to this group as well. They propogate the erroneous interpretation that any determination that children are not in the best interest of a couple is wrong unless it meets some stringent guideline of desperation. They understand that contraception is wrong, but jump to the conclusion that it is wrong to have a desire to limit family size or postpone pregnancy. This logic fails to consider why contraception is wrong, and the immorality is applied to the wrong piece of the puzzle then extended improperly to the same desire among those who practice NFP.
I’m not trying to claim that it isn’t possible to practice NFP for the wrong reasons. What I want to get across instead is that it is necessary to consider the practice separately from the intent because it is possible to come up with any combination of intent and act (right reason, right means; right reason, wrong means; wrong reason, right means; wrong reason, wrong means).
If we do not differentiate the two issues, people think “If couple A with means 1 and intent 2 are wrong, then any couple with intent 2 is wrong,” or “If couple B with means 3 and intent 4 are right, then any couple with intent 4 is no different from anyone else with intent 4.”
This does a disservice to promoting NFP in two ways.
Let me point out that the group I have in mind is primarily the one that claims, “Well, if NFP is ok by the Church and it is so effective and they can limit their family size, how is that different from an ABC couple?” This is where we find such sarcastic comments as “So God can overcome infertility but He can’t overcome a thin shield of latex?” or “NFP is just Catholic contraception.”
Language that attributes this so-called contraceptive mentality to NFP users gives some the mistaken idea that either contraceptives are ok because NFP is ok or wonder if I can sin by using NFP anyway why bother putting in the effort to learn and practice NFP.
On the other end of the spectrum, those who favor no form of family planning or require only the most grave circumstance for legitimate practice are also confusing the intent with the act. The need for distinction applies to this group as well. They propogate the erroneous interpretation that any determination that children are not in the best interest of a couple is wrong unless it meets some stringent guideline of desperation. They understand that contraception is wrong, but jump to the conclusion that it is wrong to have a desire to limit family size or postpone pregnancy. This logic fails to consider why contraception is wrong, and the immorality is applied to the wrong piece of the puzzle then extended improperly to the same desire among those who practice NFP.
I’m not trying to claim that it isn’t possible to practice NFP for the wrong reasons. What I want to get across instead is that it is necessary to consider the practice separately from the intent because it is possible to come up with any combination of intent and act (right reason, right means; right reason, wrong means; wrong reason, right means; wrong reason, wrong means).
If we do not differentiate the two issues, people think “If couple A with means 1 and intent 2 are wrong, then any couple with intent 2 is wrong,” or “If couple B with means 3 and intent 4 are right, then any couple with intent 4 is no different from anyone else with intent 4.”
This does a disservice to promoting NFP in two ways.
- Some people get the idea that any desire to limit/space children is automatically a “contraceptive mentality.” (False)
- Some people get the idea that a contracepting couple with “good intentions” is “open to life” because they would welcome a child if their contraceptive method failed. (False)
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
I am not sure that I am following everything on this discussion correctly. Are some of you saying that practicing NFP can be sinful? I find that hard to believe that following what the Church teaches is sinful. Now you may say the intent is sinful, but how do we ever know someone’s intent first of all. Again, who is it for us to judge that intent? Then again that is the intent that you are saying is sinful.
IMO, I do not feel that it is sinful to make love to my wife at a time of “infertility.” I say “infertility” in quotes, because there is still a possibility of pregnancy. It seems as if there are some arguments being made that having sex with your wife (while practicing NFP) at a time when you KNOW that you cannot get pregnant is a sinful act? How is that? Maybe I am reading this wrong in some of the posts. However, if this is someone’s stance I would like to hear their basis for this. I do not feel that at a time of infertility the marital embrace is sinful. Giving myself to my wife in a free, fruitful, total, and faithful commited act is a renewal of our wedding vows and is not sinful. No matter what day of the month it may be. Fertile or infertile. I have a hard time believing that making love in an infertile time is sinful.
Maybe I am off base or have read something wrong.
IMO, I do not feel that it is sinful to make love to my wife at a time of “infertility.” I say “infertility” in quotes, because there is still a possibility of pregnancy. It seems as if there are some arguments being made that having sex with your wife (while practicing NFP) at a time when you KNOW that you cannot get pregnant is a sinful act? How is that? Maybe I am reading this wrong in some of the posts. However, if this is someone’s stance I would like to hear their basis for this. I do not feel that at a time of infertility the marital embrace is sinful. Giving myself to my wife in a free, fruitful, total, and faithful commited act is a renewal of our wedding vows and is not sinful. No matter what day of the month it may be. Fertile or infertile. I have a hard time believing that making love in an infertile time is sinful.
Maybe I am off base or have read something wrong.
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
well said!
V
vluvski
Guest
I don’t feel like I’m getting my thoughts across quite right.
The practice of NFP is to be commended regardless of a couple’s intention. If I decide that I really want a ski boat (which I do) and a child will get in the way of that goal (which it will, at least in the short run), I could practice NFP in the most conservative manner to avoid having a child until I can buy my boat, and then I’ll start considering children. For me, this would be frivolous and insufficient.
I’m not trying to say it is sinful for me to practice NFP in that case. Materialism is the sin; practicing NFP is not. It is certainly better for me to practice NFP than to visit my doctor for the latest prescription drug that interferes with my reproductive system. I would even argue that it is better to practice NFP for the wrong reasons than to practice ABC for the right reasons.
Not trying to derail my own thread, but I also thought of this last night. Claiming that NFP can never be used legitimately because charting is ‘unnatural’ is about as logical as saying that planning a healthy meal is immoral because it is unnatural to deprive yourself of foods you want.
The practice of NFP is to be commended regardless of a couple’s intention. If I decide that I really want a ski boat (which I do) and a child will get in the way of that goal (which it will, at least in the short run), I could practice NFP in the most conservative manner to avoid having a child until I can buy my boat, and then I’ll start considering children. For me, this would be frivolous and insufficient.
I’m not trying to say it is sinful for me to practice NFP in that case. Materialism is the sin; practicing NFP is not. It is certainly better for me to practice NFP than to visit my doctor for the latest prescription drug that interferes with my reproductive system. I would even argue that it is better to practice NFP for the wrong reasons than to practice ABC for the right reasons.
Not trying to derail my own thread, but I also thought of this last night. Claiming that NFP can never be used legitimately because charting is ‘unnatural’ is about as logical as saying that planning a healthy meal is immoral because it is unnatural to deprive yourself of foods you want.
L
luvmykids
Guest
Manualman,
You really did do a great job at wording this. There is so much to think about with this sort of discussion, and all of these things are in my head when trying to have this discussion as I have tried on other threads relating to this, but I don’t have such an easy time getting it to sound like this. Your post I think, discusses exactly what is at the heart of NFP. The problem though, is that when trying to have this discussion with people who don’t understand why ABC is wrong, and why NFP is the best thing for a marriage, is that they are so used practicing what society sees as the norm, that they are blinded to this. And it is sad. Sadly enough, they may never really understand until they decide to submit to the Church’s authority on this, have faith in the Church’s teaching, and go through the “sullen obedience” part of it. It is through this that they then will see it the way you do and what a gift it is to us, and how it helps us with our salvation. I think sometimes obedience comes first and then the understanding and the fruits of that obedience.
V
vluvski
Guest
Just had to throw this out there for your amusement. There is less possibility for an “oops” when practicing NFP than when using ABC. The sufficiency of your reason for avoiding pregnancy, on the other hand, is for God to know and me not to judge.
F
fix
Guest
I think you touched on an important moral point. I would like to ask someone with formal training in moral theology a question. In the above post you state that intention does not matter when practicing NFP. Now, I practice NFP and am a big supporter, but a moral act needs to have a good intention and a licit means?
The nature of the Church’s proscription regarding contraceptive intercourse is that the fertility aspect is intentionally frustrated. The two aspects of the marital embrace are separated. While I can see that NFP as a means may never be illicit, it would seem the intention for it’s use may be illicit. Humanae Vitae says serious reasons must exist to space births. Now, I cannot speak to any specfic case, but is it not reasonable to conclude a couple who engages in the marital embrace each time thinking that fertility is a bad thing, like a disease to avoid, would be rejecting the very nature of the act and thus commit sin?
V
vluvski
Guest
Yes, I’d say they are committing a sin, but NFP is not an action so it cannot be a sin any more than a knife can be a sin. Please note, I have no formal training, this is kind of my own interpretation. I’d be very interested in having a sound moral theologian pick apart my logic, but here goes… Sex is morally good, so it cannot be a sin. It can be sinfully misused, but the sex act itself is not immoral. It is also not sinful to not have sex. I’d bet a lot of money that it’s exactly what most of us are doing right now (thanks Christopher West for that great line.) Taking one’s temperature, examining one’s mucus, drawing a graph… also not sinful. These are the only actions involved in “doing” NFP, and none are inherently sinful.
Consider the statement, “It is sinful to have sex outside of marriage.” This is true, but what is sinful about sex outside marriage? Is it the sex, because sex is bad and dirty? No, because God created sex as something good and holy, and the sex act is not sinful! One could say instead that it is immoral or sinful to separate the sex act from uncontracepted marital union between a husband and wife. In this way we avoid the ambiguity of calling pre/extramarital sex sinful. It is sinful, but not because sex is sinful.
Likewise, it is better to say, “It is sinful to selfishly limit your potential for reproduction” than to say, “It is sinful to practice NFP for selfish reasons.” The practice of NFP has nothing to do with whether or not it is sinful to be selfish or materialistic or lustful.
C
cynic
Guest
so your point is…sex is only for children, use it for something else and it’s selfish and lustfull. I’d ask again, if that is so, and a couple have a reason to avoid children - why not completely abstain then?
You seem to be saying that a little bit of non-procreative intentioned sex is ok (nfp), but too much is a sin (abc). That doesn’t make sense. Either a desire is healthy or it’s lustfull, circumstances aside, and since you’ve linked ‘healthy’ desire as inseperable from the will to have more children - then I can’t see how an nfp practicing couple are different from an abc couple in terms of the intent behind individual acts of intercourse. They both intend to have sex without it being about children. Pretty obviouse.
U
uncleauberon
Guest
The ideas of intent within NFP are also coupled with knowledge.
And with attitude.
{ – Assuming that a couple has legitimate reasons to delay, postpone or avoid conception – }
The ABC couple knows that ABC is around 4-9% ineffective. They are willing to accept that chance and use ABC.
The ABC couple if they knew the woman might be fertile would use ABC. Accepting the 4-9% chance of pregnancy
The ABC couple, if they knew that the woman was in an infertile time, would also accept the 4% chance of pregnancy then wouldn’t bother with ABC and go “natural” ?
– Wouldn’t they.? If they could ? If they cared ?
The NFP couple knows when a woman is mostl likely infertile and take that 4% chance of pregnancy when they have relations.
The NFP couple knows that there is around a 30%+ chance of pregnancy during a woman’s fertile time - and they choose to abstain (or not).
What’s the difference ??
The ABC couple doesn’t care if the woman is fertile or infertile they don’t want to abstain for any reason at any time.
They don’t go “natural” because they don’t like the odds of pregnancy ever.
The NFP couple knows the odds and they choose when they play and when they abstain. They work with nature rather than trying to “fix” the odds to “beat the house”.
The truth is that ABC isn’t necessary.
All a couple has to do is keep track of the woman’s fertility.
And then make a well informed decision about when they want to engage in realtions.
{ I will admit that it does take lots of good attitude and self-disicple to do it }
And with attitude.
{ – Assuming that a couple has legitimate reasons to delay, postpone or avoid conception – }
The ABC couple knows that ABC is around 4-9% ineffective. They are willing to accept that chance and use ABC.
The ABC couple if they knew the woman might be fertile would use ABC. Accepting the 4-9% chance of pregnancy
The ABC couple, if they knew that the woman was in an infertile time, would also accept the 4% chance of pregnancy then wouldn’t bother with ABC and go “natural” ?
– Wouldn’t they.? If they could ? If they cared ?
The NFP couple knows when a woman is mostl likely infertile and take that 4% chance of pregnancy when they have relations.
The NFP couple knows that there is around a 30%+ chance of pregnancy during a woman’s fertile time - and they choose to abstain (or not).
What’s the difference ??
The ABC couple doesn’t care if the woman is fertile or infertile they don’t want to abstain for any reason at any time.
They don’t go “natural” because they don’t like the odds of pregnancy ever.
The NFP couple knows the odds and they choose when they play and when they abstain. They work with nature rather than trying to “fix” the odds to “beat the house”.
The truth is that ABC isn’t necessary.
All a couple has to do is keep track of the woman’s fertility.
And then make a well informed decision about when they want to engage in realtions.
{ I will admit that it does take lots of good attitude and self-disicple to do it }
F
fix
Guest
OK, I agree, just as a condom is not intrinsically evil but its use may be.
The act of sex itself, outside of the intended use, is sinful. I do not see how the parsing changes it? An act which could be good and holy would become profane and illicit. The intent and the act itself are wrong in the situation outside marriage.
I need some help here. NFP are a means. Why can this particular means not be used for an evil end just as sex, or a condom, or a gun may be used for an evil end?
So, is it fair to conclude that while the means itself are not evil, the act may be evil because the intention is wrong?
V
vluvski
Guest
Cynic, thank you for proving the entire point of my thread. Write this down, frame it, and put it up in your house somewhere. The intention to have sex without having children is not intrinsically evil. There are times when a couple can legitimately desire (and use NFP to act upon that desire) to avoid pregnancy for a month, year, or even indefinitely.
Please provide a quote where anyone has “linked ‘healthy’ desire [for sex] as inseparable from the will to have children.” This is simply not church teaching, and even if you could provide a quote from an NFP promoter saying as much, it would be incorrect.
I would say the desire for sex is inseparable from God’s intricate plan for marriage and sexuality. Part of that plan includes periodic and eventually permanent female infertility, and sex during those times is not a sin.
V
vluvski
Guest
I don’t know, maybe I’m grasping at straws here. I admit this looks like it could be a pretty weak argument, but for some reason it makes more sense to me than saying that sometimes an act is good and holy and other times it is sinful.
Help me out here. All actions are evil, good, or benign. All intentions are also evil, good, or benign. Thus in every circumstance in life, both the intent and the action must separately be judged as evil (illicit), or good or benign (licit). An action is arguably tied to the intention (the means and the end) such that the illicit nature of just one makes chosen course either moral or immoral.
We know that a good intention cannot cause an immoral act to become good or even benign. Is a good or benign (licit) action rendered evil (illicit) because the intent is evil (illicit), or is the sin committed by way of the intent alone? In other words, can a bad intention cause a licit act to become illicit? Oh, dear! :whacky: :ehh:
- Status