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

[vluvski]

otm:

You seem to be saying that there is a moral duty to have intercourse any time that the woman can conceive, but the Church does not and has not taught that. while it is theoretically possible that a woman could conceive at any time, practically it is not. God neither requires us to have intercourse each and every time a woman can conceive, nor doe He require one to have intercourse during that period of time if one has had intercourse during the time she could not conceive.

That’s not what I’m saying at all! I’m not sure where you picked that up, so I’ll try to re-explain.

The worldly goals (the intent) of NFP and ABC are essentially the same regardless of the presence or absence of just reason to do so: to avoid pregnancy. In claiming that a couple who abstains during fertile times is “open to life” by implying that they are open to a method failure, you leave the argument vulnerable to claiming that a couple practicing ABC is “open” to a corresponding method failure. These ambiguous phrases like “open to life” and “contraceptive mindset” can be more or less applied to both ABC and NFP because they are not properly defined anywhere and are easily confused. Perhaps the phrase “open to discernment” would capture the essence of both better?

I’m not saying this to convince people that NFP must be wrong since it has the same goal as ABC. I am saying this to point out that it is impossible to differentiate ABC from NFP on the basis that NFP is “open to life” and ABC is not.
While someone who already understands the difference between the two will understand the meaning of “open to life” as it relates to sexuality and uncontracepted sex (which is precisely what you are getting at in the gun analogy), people who don’t understand the difference are only confused further.

Basically, in order to demonstrate how ABC is intrinsically evil and fundamentally different from NFP, it is necessary to exclude any argument based on intent because an action that is intrinsically evil remains so regardless of the end goal. The intent of the action is an equally important factor in determining the morality of each specific situation, but it remains a separate issue.

Your garden hose sprayer analogy works when talking about improperly used NFP, but not when talking about ABC. ABC is not morally neutral, it is intrinsically evil. If we are unsuccessful in explaining that ABC is intrinsically evil, then NFP simply doesn’t make sense. Why use NFP if you can be OK practicing ABC as long as your intent is good; or NFP must be wrong since it has the same contraceptive mindset.

I understand what you’re getting at when you say the intent of ABC is to frustrate the act, but I’d bet money that most women who go on birth control aren’t thinking, “Hey, I’m going to make sex meaningless and separate it from God’s intended purpose.” They’re probably thinking, “Man, I don’t want to get pregnant,” so it is inaccurate and unfair to define the intent any other way. It is the means itself that is problematic regardless of what the intent is.

 

[KCT]

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.

JPII had great, though deep, things to say about it. My favorite goes something like this:

“When a husband and wife decide to practice NFP and not to contracept, they do more than make a moral decision regarding their act of conjugal union. They choose in favor of an authentic Christian vision of human persons as free, personal subjects. If a couple decides to practice contraception, they are opting, consciously or not, for a materialistic concept of the person as an object that can be manipulated.” (The Splendor of Love p. 159)

The idea of a person being an object to be manipulated was, for me, interesting to ponder. —KCT

 

[vluvski]

fix:

uncleauberon:

In short the question of ABC vs. NFP are twofold.

1 - Should we try to avoid conception ? or rather - Is it a sin right now for us to try to avoid conception ?

2 - If we are not sinning to avoid conception, then by what means should we engage (or not engage) in to accomplish this ?

To avoid sin :
We must first answer Question # 1 correctly before we move onto question # 2.

Thanks. That is what I was trying to get across and you did it very well.

I don’t disagree that these are the questions that need to be asked when a couple is discerning whether to avoid pregnancy and what means to use.
However, when people enter a discussion about the difference between ABC and NFP, they aren’t concerned about question 1. For one thing, the case would be entirely hypothetical. For another, the answer to question 1 is between the couple and God anyway.
Sending people back to question one when they’re asking about number two propagates the erroneous assumption that the presence of sufficient reason is the only thing that matters.

 

[fix]

vluvski:

I don’t disagree that these are the questions that need to be asked when a couple is discerning whether to avoid pregnancy and what means to use.
However, when people enter a discussion about the difference between ABC and NFP, they aren’t concerned about question 1. For one thing, the case would be entirely hypothetical. For another, the answer to question 1 is between the couple and God anyway.
Sending people back to question one when they’re asking about number two propagates the erroneous assumption that the presence of sufficient reason is the only thing that matters.

I understand your concern and I think you have a valid point, but I also think that circumstances dictate how we approach these issues. In addition, in thinking about this thread I am considering the charge that NFP is simply Catholic contraception in the same way folks charge a decree of nullity is Catholic divorce and IMO those charges often have merit.

While in theory the use of NFP is better than contraception, in practice it may be misused so much that we have simply replaced contraception with a licit means while couples may still be committing serious sin. Is it possible the promotion is NFP is done simply as a vehicle to replace contraception while we have not fully grasped the nature of the marital act? IOW, practicing NFP is not enough? It is better, but it still may fall short of the goal if we fail to see why NFP is better and that involves understanding why the intention to use it is critical.

I may have just confused myself.:whacky:

 

[vluvski]

I totally agree, fix, they absolutely have a valid argument. The alarming rates of annullments and the lack of generousity even among NFP couples is a problem. I think it is a mistake, though, to try to take on these problems at the same time we try to address why NFP is a morally licit alternative to ABC, and I don’t think it is necessarily a mistake to promote NFP to a couple who will still hang onto the contraceptive mindset.

Acceptance of NFP (or the need for an annullment) is just a stepping stone to helping people understand the true meaning of marriage and sexuality. As manualman says, at least couples practicing NFP must come face to face with the decision on a monthly basis.

This isn’t scientific proof, but at my current parish, I have never in my life seen as many large (5+ kids) families. The priest promotes pro-life events from the pulpit probably monthly, and there is always a stock of One More Soul tapes and CDs in the back of the church. Since no one is running around encouraging couples to have more kids, I have to conclude that the contraceptive mindset is a lot easier to erase once couples are convinced that NFP is better than ABC, and once families become accustomed to big, happy, responsible families.

 

[setter]

vluvski:

This isn’t scientific proof, but at my current parish, I have never in my life seen as many large (5+ kids) families. The priest promotes pro-life events from the pulpit probably monthly, and there is always a stock of One More Soul tapes and CDs in the back of the church. Since no one is running around encouraging couples to have more kids, I have to conclude that the contraceptive mindset is a lot easier to erase once couples are convinced that NFP is better than ABC, and once families become accustomed to big, happy, responsible families.

To comment without straying too far from the OP, I have had similar observation and thoughts. However, without my knowing each couples’ personal circumstances, my wondering becomes if these couples with smaller than previous generation families have simply in good conscience found serious reason to post-pone or plan for no future pregnancy (though there is ample reason to have doubts)? (means aside)

I am left wondering if not 4, 5, or 6+ children now a days is in responsible consideration a serious financial, emotional, mental, …burden for most couples than in generations past? Or have we as Catholics been duped by the prevailing culture of what our perceived “needs” really are?

The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. The love of the spouses and the begetting of children create among members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities. (CCC 2201)

A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. (CCC 2368)

 

[fix]

setter:

To comment without straying too far from the OP, I have had similar observation and thoughts. However, without my knowing each couples’ personal circumstances, my wondering becomes if these couples with smaller than previous generation families have simply in good conscience found serious reason to post-pone or plan for no future pregnancy (though there is ample reason to have doubts)? (means aside)

I am left wondering if not 4, 5, or 6+ children now a days is in responsible consideration a serious financial, emotional, mental, …burden for most couples than in generations past? Or have we as Catholics been duped by the prevailing culture of what our perceived “needs” really are?

These are fair points to consider. I do not wish to attribute sin to anyone I am simply asking if our emphasis well placed? I can see the argument that today it may well be more of a burden to have a “large” family then in past times. I know that sounds strange and may be hard to defend, but in certain ways perhaps it is accurate?

 

[cynic]

setter:

Ask women who use ABC in their marriage, and they will tell you that they begin to feel like objects of pleasure for their husbands. It is very difficult not to go down that road when you seperate the unitive from the procreative and check out the need to thoughtfully communicate in rational and prayerful discernment the real possibility of bringing an eternal soul into existance. Yes, the fullness of the marital act is more than pleasure which ABC by design inherently severs and disjoins (as in physically, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, interpersonally). There is a wholistic qualitative difference between NFP and ABC. I wonder sometimes if females do not appreciate the different hard drive wiring of men and how ABC especially lends itself to husbands objectifying the conjugal act for self-pleasure in satisfaction of their God given sexual desire and urges (not that women are exempt).

.

isn’t that what’s happening when a couple use NFP? How do you define ‘objecitfying’ the cojuagal act anyway? Isn’t this religiousised language just a way to muddle up the argument? Your argueing that the intent changes once procreation is severed from the act - which is what NFP does in its intent - just to a lesser degree than ABC because it requires some abstinance.

I’l ask again, what is a husband doing if not ‘objectifying’ his wife by desiring sex with her without it resulting in children? What other reason is there for this other than self-satisfaction - and quite frankly - what is wrong with that anyway? By the way have you asked women who use ABC in their marriages?, probably not, this is just something to make people who do something you and your church disagree with look like animals.

 

[setter]

isn’t that what’s happening when a couple use NFP? How do you define ‘objecitfying’ the cojuagal act anyway? Isn’t this religiousised language just a way to muddle up the argument? **Your argueing that the intent changes once procreation is severed from the act - which is what NFP does in its intent **

• just to a lesser degree than ABC because it requires some abstinance.
  No I am not. What ABC changes that NFP does not change is the reality of the conjugal act – ABC actually and really intentionally frustrates the conjugal act, which is what the contracepting couple intends. You cannot say the same for NFP, even if it is being misused with a “contraceptive mentality”.

I’l ask again, what is a husband doing if not ‘objectifying’ his wife by desiring sex with her without it resulting in children?

Affirming their marriage covenant.

What other reason is there for this other than self-satisfaction - and quite frankly - what is wrong with that anyway?

Affirming their marriage covenant. Who ever said there is anything wrong with couples affirming their marriage covenant?

By the way have you asked women who use ABC in their marriages?, probably not, this is just something to make people who do something you and your church disagree with look like animals.

There has been substantial convincing testimonies to the effect and the fact that the wifes are the only one’s complaining about feeling used in the ABC spousal dyad.

 

[cynic]

“affriming the marriage covenant”? what does that actually mean in terms of an action? and why do that with sex? Why not just repeat your wedding vows in front of them? Ofcourse A couple using contaception are not affirming thier marrage vows, they are merely objecitfying each other Oh and since a couple already pregnant or infertile can also have unlimited sex, they should abstain during the times which they most want to in order to avoid objectifying one another.

 

[vluvski]

cynic:

Of course A couple using contaception are not affirming thier marrage vows, they are merely objecitfying each other Oh and since a couple already pregnant or infertile can also have unlimited sex, they should abstain during the times which they most want to in order to avoid objectifying one another.

If you’re only interested in making sarcastic comments and attack our beliefs, please do not waste the valuable time of posters who are trying to help you and others understand the Catholic perspective.

 

[uncleauberon]

vluvski:

Sending people back to question one when they’re asking about number two propagates the erroneous assumption that the presence of sufficient reason is the only thing that matters.

{working backwards} if NFP is in question then “sufficient reason” is the most important thing that matters.

My post was in response to the question about when could NFP be sinful.

by which the Question # 1 must be discerned rightly.

Then Question # 2 must be discerend rightly.

If Question # 1 (Should we try to avoid conception?)
is discerned wrongly then Question # 2 (How should we avoid conception ?) would be sinful automatically.

If Question # 1 (Should we ?) is discerend rightly then the weight of right discernment falls upon Question # 2 (How should we?)

vluvski:

However, when people enter a discussion about the difference between ABC and NFP, they aren’t concerned about question 1. For one thing, the case would be entirely hypothetical. For another, the answer to question 1 is between the couple and God anyway.

They should be concerned with question # 1 - It is the first question.

The case is not hypothetical at all. The case will be put to the test that very night when the couple is alone. They make that choice and ask those questions inherantly each time they have relations.

{it would only be hypothetical if the people in the converstion were known to be completely infertile or have no opportunityy for sex at all}

Family Planning is between the couple, God, Church and the community at large.

The decision and discernment is for the couple alone - but they must include each of these elements in their consideration.
Isn’t this idea one of the foundations of Moral Theology ?

I hope this clarifies.

todd

 

[fix]

cynic:

I’l ask again, what is a husband doing if not ‘objectifying’ his wife by desiring sex with her without it resulting in children?

That is not objectification unless the intent is to exclude God from the equation by frustrating one’s fertility. If one is not intentionally trying to eliminate fertility during the act, then one is not simply using the other as a means to the end.

 

[fix]

{working backwards} if NFP is in question then “sufficient reason” is the most important thing that matters.

My post was in response to the question about when could NFP be sinful.

by which the Question # 1 must be discerned rightly.

Then Question # 2 must be discerend rightly.

If Question # 1 (Should we try to avoid conception?)
is discerned wrongly then Question # 2 (How should we avoid conception ?) would be sinful automatically.

If Question # 1 (Should we ?) is discerend rightly then the weight of right discernment falls upon Question # 2 (How should we?)

Again, very helpful. If the intent is wrong, then it is a sin no matter what means are used?

 

[vluvski]

uncleauberon:

The case is not hypothetical at all. The case will be put to the test that very night when the couple is alone. They make that choice and ask those questions inherantly each time they have relations.

I hope this clarifies.

todd

Todd,
Maybe we just disagree here. How is it possible to discern whether or not the intent is right if there is no situation in question?

I am not married, and even so my decision has already been made. It is no ones business but my own and my fiance’s what our prayerful decision will be when we get married, and it is fruitless to bring our decision into any discussion about the difference between NFP and ABC.

Consider ABC as you might consider fornication or masturbation. You wouldn’t ask someone debating you their reasons for masturbating, because the reasons don’t matter. Fornication, masturbation, and ABC all have something in common: they are all intrinsically evil.

The intent of a masturbator or fornicator is irrelevant (maybe someone wants to avoid lustful thoughts about his girlfriend). The fact that there are ways to curb these thoughts without masturbating or fornication does not make it necessary to talk about someone’s intent in doing so before we discuss why it is wrong anyway.

Similarly, the intent of someone practicing ABC is irrelevant because it’s wrong anyway. At least with NFP they have half a chance not to sin. Once you start talking about someone’s intent, doubters get hung up on the intent portion and are at a disadvantage in understanding why ABC is wrong, good intentions or not.

Maybe my point would make more sense if the problem was something commonplace and a prospective solution was preposterous.

Question 1: Would it be sinful for me to eat a chocolate bar right now?

Question 2: If I can non-sinfully eat a chocolate bar right now, how can I get my chocolate bar?

Well, since I’m not being a glutton by eating a chocolate bar right now and I don’t have any health considerations that make it imprudent, I can safely eat a chocolate bar. How about I go to the Quik-mart and shoot the clerk to get my chocolate bar?

If you’re trying to convince someone not to shoot the clerk to get the candy bar, your first line of argument probably wouldn’t be, “Well, you shouldn’t be trying to get your hands on a chocolate bar in the first place.”

Unfortunately, this is exactly the approach you and others are suggesting people use to refute ABC, and it has already been shown to be ineffective.

 

[setter]

“affriming the marriage covenant”? what does that actually mean in terms of an action? and why do that with sex? Why not just repeat your wedding vows in front of them? Ofcourse A couple using contaception are not affirming thier marrage vows, they are merely objecitfying each other Oh and since a couple already pregnant or infertile can also have unlimited sex, they should abstain during the times which they most want to in order to avoid objectifying one another.

Christian marriage is a sacrament and the sexual act is the physical sign of that sacrament in the same way that the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine are the physical signs of the Eucharist. Each time that a couple comes together in the marital act they in essence reconsecrate themselves to their wedding vows, i.e. “affirm the marriage covenant”. Actually, quite a romantic notion.

Consider for a moment how shocking it would be for a Catholic to see someone receive the Eucharist and then undo the consequences of the act by spitting out the host. This is what contraception does in action and should shock us no less.

 

[Halo]

On Sunday past the Parish Priest had all married couples stand up and renew our marriage vows. Was my first experience with that and I found it to be very moving, and strengthening.

Conjugal love does express things differently though, and at a depth that surpasses words. I know married couples will understand what I mean.

On the note of “how many” my mom used to say " how could anyone put a fridge or a car in front of a little baby?" meaning financially of course.
Yes sometimes I do believe people" cry poverty" with no just cause.

 

[vluvski]

Todd and fix, I really can’t tell what you’re going back and forth trying to disprove in my posts. I have already agreed that intent alone can make an act sinful. We already agree on this, and it isn’t quite on topic with the OP.

Now look at it from the other side. The act alone can be sinful even with a moral intent.

Look again at the quote setter provided from the CCC, especially the bolded parts:

A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

**The object of the choice can by itself ** vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.(CCC 1755)

The language here can get a little confusing. The object is essentially the action or the means. The end is the goal or the intent. So basically what is being said in the bolded portion is that sometimes it doesn’t matter what the end/intent/goal is, only that the object/action/means is by itself intrinsically evil.

Such is the case with ABC.

 

[uncleauberon]

vluvski:

Todd,
Maybe we just disagree here. How is it possible to discern whether or not the intent is right if there is no situation in question?.

I believe that I did address that by stating the question is hypothetical if the people in the conversation are infertile or not able to have sex.

The fact that you are unmarried does not make this hypothetical.

You are fertile (barring some medical condition). Therefore you are choosing. Not only to avoid the sin of fornication - but also the sin of ABC.
Especially if you have a fiance’. It can be a trying time to choose Chaste abstinence.

I know many unmarried people that are fertile and commit both of these. Fornication and ABC

They could even use NFP – That’s good - but they are still comitting Fornication.

NFP is about accepting Fertility. A man’s and a woman’s.

vluvski:

It is no ones business but my own and my fiance’s what our prayerful decision will be when we get married,

Sorry that is incorrect. And a topic for another thread.
Your prayful decisions must be made in the real context of personal responsibility to self, family, friends, God, church and community.

The family is the primary unit of the Church and of Society - Therefore, a couple’s decisions about family are of primary importance to us all.

vluvski:

Similarly, the intent of someone practicing ABC is irrelevant because it’s wrong anyway. At least with NFP they have half a chance not to sin. Once you start talking about someone’s intent, doubters get hung up on the intent portion and are at a disadvantage in understanding why ABC is wrong, good intentions or not.

"Half a chance not to sin "— I like that !!!

Yes, you are right that this is a hang-up for some.

They need to think more clearly about how they are discerning and what exactly they are discerning.

Yet, intent is of prime importance – what is the intent of ABC ?

It is more than just the avoidance of conception; it is avoidance by a certain means. They still have to answer Question # 2 –

OK you got the right intention - Now will you conduct youself in the right manner accorrding to that intention ?

ABC - Artificial Birth Control isn’t one third of itself.

• It is Artificial
• It isn’t birth (or it’s promotion)
• It isn’t control (self-control that is)

Heh … 2/3 oxymoron !

have a good one…

todd

 

[vluvski]

uncleauberon:

I believe that I did address that by stating the question is hypothetical if the people in the conversation are infertile or not able to have sex.

The fact that you are unmarried does not make this hypothetical.

Ok, so when you talk to someone about, say, why it is immoral to murder, you talk about it assuming that either you or the person you are talking to might go out and murder someone that night?

I really feel like you’re not listening to me at all here, and I’m getting really frustrated! Murder is like ABC- it is intrinsically evil. It is possible to make a sound and valid argument against both without ever considering the intent of someone contemplating either act.

I definitely agree with you that intent must be considered if you are counseling someone who wants to or is using ABC, but aren’t you more likely to lose them in the first sentence if you start off by saying, “Well, since you and your wife are obviously well off and both of you seem pretty stable, just kick the ABC and have some kids!” Something tells me that wouldn’t go over well. They first need to get over their fear that NFP is going to cause them to have millions of kids. Once they are convinced that NFP can be effective and that it is fundamentally different from ABC, then they’ll be more maleable and open to convincing that maybe they can reconsider their plans not to have children until X happens or ever. Just look back through posts of people who experienced a conversion and decided to try NFP- for most of them, the intent is shaped on its own.

uncleauberon:

Sorry that is incorrect. And a topic for another thread.
Your prayful decisions must be made in the real context of personal responsibility to self, family, friends, God, church and community.

Humanae Vitae clearly leaves the decision to use NFP to avoid pregnancy up to the properly formed consciences of the couple without requiring (name removed by moderator)ut from any of the said other parties. It is our business only in that we have no obligation whatsoever to announce or justify this decision to any other member of the community. Sure, the decision effects everyone with whom we come in contact, but they have no need to be involved in making that decision in any way provided our consciences are properly formed.