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

[vluvski]

uncleauberon:

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 –

This is exactly my point!!!

The MEANS employed by ABC (frustrating the natural cycle of fertility and infertility) is the WRONG means.

The means and the intent are attached to separate moral values. Together they constitute the ‘circumstance,’ but the intent does not include the means and the means does not include the intent.

Thus, it is incorrect to say that the intent of ABC is to avoid pregnancy by a certain means. The intent is blind to the means, so the intent is simply to avoid pregnancy. The means, with its separate moral value, is by frustrating the act as it was naturally intended.

Why is it so hard to make clear that there is no need to bring up intent when convincing someone that that particular means is always wrong?

 

[uncleauberon]

vluvski:

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.

Very clever. Good point.

You are right valid points can be made about ABC being immoral.

You can try your way of discussing the topic – but I feel that the water gets too muddy quickly because you be working against the stream of argument…

I would recommend you start with 1st causes and then down to the ABC

---

My question would be in the Murder conversation - is…
What are the ground rules for the convesation ?
Is this purely a hypothetically discussion ?
Are you sure that the person that is engaging in the conversation is only hypothetically asking you ??

I have been talking to youth that are in gangs. They may ask if murder is always a sin. Should I discuss this theoretically with them or should I bring the point home by applying a real life example ? Point for point - A to Z. I may have saved a life that next weekend.

Are you discussing ABC with a person that is sexually fertile - who will in a reasonable amount of time need to make real decision about this topic ? Then you are not having a theoretical discussion.

All Moral Theology starts with the idea that

Is this a sin - that it can and possibly will be committed by the object person ?

---

I like your points about practical evangelization.
We don’t want to lose someone in the conversation right off the bat.

But, this proves my method of starting with the primary question.
and then move on to the second question.

It it a short training for your conversation then and in the future.​

Joe Married Man : Is ABC a sin ?

Catholic Man : The short answer is Yes - but we could have a long discussion on why.

Joe Married Man : Why is it a sin ?

Catholic Man : Well, first of all Why should a married couple avoid pregnancy at all - regardless of how they do it ?

etc…​

Eventually the topic of NFP would come up – at which time you need to solidify the ground work of context of the question within the framework of the Question # 1 (Why should they ?).

It is Joe Married man that will muddy the water with issues like – fornication. Get that out of the way first with Question # 1 - Focus the conversation on NFP vs. ABC as a legitamate means of avoiding conception in a marriage that has been rightly discerned.

vluvski:

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.

Agreed.

The Church is involved with helping form the conscience.
Family and friends can be consulted for help - but are not obliged to participate.

In general you are correct about this. My first statement holds - the decision must be made by the couple with all factors in consideration.

God Bless You

todd

 

[cynic]

fix:

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.

why is that the definition of objectification? what end is there other than personal satisfaction if they don’t desire to have a child? Isn’t that just using each other for an end? How is it not. The catholic church has defined ‘objectification’ in a way that it sees fit, but it’s completely outside of logic. All phsyical attraction is to some extent objectifying, and if a couple is acting on an urge for phsyical intimacy without children as the gaol, then the abilility for sperm to meet egg is irrelevant to their intent and what’s going in their heads.

 

[vluvski]

uncleauberon:

You can try your way of discussing the topic – but I feel that the water gets too muddy quickly because you be working against the stream of argument…
God Bless You

todd

Okay, it seems we’re finally on the same page now. Phew!

I think we can both agree that answering one question at a time is key to having a cohesive argument. I do think it is possible to go about it effectively either way, but too often people begin with one and then use the other. I just get so frustrated at having to undo the damage when people assume that ABC is OK because they consider themselves “open to life” or when people argue that NFP is wrong because it is better at doing what ABC does (avoid pregnancy).

My logic is this: I am talking to Sally Wife, and she believes she has a reason to postpone pregnancy and plans to use ABC to do it. If we spend an hour discussing valid reasons for postponing pregnancy and it turns out she does have a good one, she might get more and more attached to the idea of ABC. Suppose the two of you look at your watch and Oops, gotta run- that’s yet another night that Sally will think she is justified in using ABC.

I actually ran into this EXACT situation several months ago. My friend did, in my opinion, have a valid reason to avoid pregnancy for the time being, and I ran out of opportunities to show her why NFP could be the answer because she was so intent on convincing me that she definitely shouldn’t try to get pregnant right now. Knowing I am Catholic, I think she assumed I would try to tell her to have a baby right away.

If on the other hand we had started off talking about how the means of ABC is fundamentally different from NFP or how effective NFP is compared to ABC, she might have had more time during the conversation to warm up to the idea of NFP. I’ll never know what the outcome might have been if I had handled it differently.

Truly, though, you have to evaluate each person and examine what the “weakest point” might be. If a person seems uncertain about preventing the pregnancy, by all means help them understand that they may very well not have a need to. If the person is dead-set on avoiding, though, it seems better to help them discover NFP and letting the intent argument introduce itself when they find themselves fertile and unable to enjoy relations.

 

[otm]

That’s not what I’m saying at all! I’m not sure where you picked that up

From your first post.

vluvski:

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.

Ok, here we disagree. I would use the word "may’ instead of “are”. The goal, by and large, of ABC is to remove all responsiblity in how the gift of sex is used, by removing the effect of pregnancy. It is far more likely to result in an air of self gratification than NFP; why else would so many women have the feeling that they are to be an “on demand” sex partner as opposed to being a spouse? And why would so many women who practice NFP report such better communication with their spouse, and report they feel cherished rather than used?

vluvski:

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.

We disagree that they are not defined. Again, it has to do with who is doing the explaining, and how well.

vluvski:

Perhaps the phrase “open to discernment” would capture the essence of both better?

No, that borders on the confusion of the difference between act and intent. One can not be open to discernment while using ABC if one understands (that is, accepts) that it is an intrinsically evil act. And given the state of catechesis over the last 60 years the Pill has been around, one should not be shocked to find a goodly number of people who do not understand that the Pill is intrinsically evil.

vluvski:

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.

Again, NFP is always open to life by the act itself. ABC is not open to life by the act itself. To say that one is (by intention) open to life while having sex and practicing NFP is not to engage in an oxymoron, or to engage in a contradiction of terms. To say that one is open to life while using ABC is to say that either one does not understand that ABC is intrinsically evil, or to engage in an oxymoron.

vluvski:

people who don’t understand the difference are only confused further.

perhaps we are talking to different sets of people. I haven’t found anyone who doesn’t "get it’ half so much as I have found people who simply won’t even discuss it. As in, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I already have my mind made up”.

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.

vluvski:

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.

Again, what I have seen convince some people is the fact that ABC has not delivered what it promised: better sex and better (closer) relationships between the partners. They are not convinced by the (Scholastic) natural law arguement, but they definitely get the personalist and phenomenologist point of looking at what is actually going on; ABC leaves women feeling degraded as a sex toy, and when they react to those feelings by withdrawing form sex, or putting up with it rather than entering openly and in joy, it leaves the men feeling like they have to beg or bargain, and that sex is now some sort of reward for being a good boy. When they hear what the difference is for those using NFP, they get it. But they get it not based on some natural law arguement, but on natural consequences they can see and experience.

vluvski:

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.

Again, we partly disagree. She may be thinking that, initially. However, more and more evidence is coming in that there are a lot of unhappy marriages - unhappy men and unhappy women - due to the feeling they eventually recognize as based on sex as an orgasm as opposed to sex as a communication on the deepest level.

 

[otm]

fix:

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?

Yes.

While it is not wrong to want to know what category of sin it would reside in, one needs to remember that the moral life is a bit more than just not sinning. In other words, one could get bogged down in a long exercise of trying to determine whether a specific act is a sin, and fail to see that the dimensions of life are not necessarily contained in that question; a few dimensions are but certainly not all.

It is not to suggest that we should not be aware of sinful acts, or be casual about them. But at the same time, one can presume that one is a good Catholic because one does not practice birth control, and miss the point that being a good Catholic consists in far more than simply avoiding sin.

 

[LittleDeb]

I think I’ve arrived late to the party but I hope I can still join in.

I agree, Vluvski. I have encountered much of the same trouble you discuss here. When promoting NFP it is so hard to show the difference of means from ABC as soon as intent enters the picture. Those folks who use ABC with good intent really have it tough. For them it seems intent is all that matters. The concept that a means might be evil doesn’t rate discussion.

I really like the concise way the intent and means were presented here.

1. Should we?
2. How should we?

The problem I have encountered is many people I have talked to answer question #1 as “Duh! of course!” That is where the water gets muddied. By the time they get to question 2 they pick the option (ABC) that appears easiest and see no difference. As some here have pointed out, the ones who embrace NFP at this point do so out of the desire for natural not artificial.

Those who have answered question 1 with more care and thought might be set in their means of ABC or might be open to NFP.

Because this has been my experience I agree that the intent argument can cause problems. Since I am a poster child for the “NFP user who desperately wants more children but has very serious reason to abstain,” I can sometimes communicate with those in either camp (but sometimes I cannot.)

The intent argument sometimes wastes valuable time and further confuses the issue as many of us have seen. Those who want to believe their intent is legitimate will do a lot to convince themselves and others. I guess my intent is to show that there is a licit means to space (or prevent) conception. It is that “properly formed conscience” I just can’t seem to have an effect on. I wish that part were handled more in depth at the pastoral level.

 

[josea]

This is how I see the difference between ABC and NFP and how the misuse of NFP could be sinful:

1.   It is licit to space birth of child of to avoid pregnancy at all *if serious reasons are present*.

2.   ABC and the use of NFP do the job and therefore they are not OPEN TO LIFE (it would be a contradiction. What it is intended is to have sex without the consequent pregnancy)

but when looking to each sexual relation:

1.  ABC directly transforms the sexual act in an INFERTIL SEXUAL ACT and by doing that its nature changes. The spouses are no longer engage in NORMAL SEXUAL ACT but a different one: in an *ACTIVELY RENDERED INFERTIL ACTIVITY*. That is sinful. The ABC method to regulate reproduction is not licit.

2.  The use of NFP respects the nature of the act. It is a normal sexual act, it maintains all its characteristics, and it is not changed in a different one. The only thing is that we now KNOW that the sexual act will be no fertile. That is licit.

3.  The misuse of NFP is sinful not because the sexual act is transformed and neither because of the intention but, as I said in 1) because spacing births or to avoiding pregnancy is licit ONLY if serious reasons are present. It is sinful to regulate reproduction, no matter the method use (NFP), if those serious reasons do not exist.

Jose

 

[fix]

otm:

Yes.

While it is not wrong to want to know what category of sin it would reside in, one needs to remember that the moral life is a bit more than just not sinning. In other words, one could get bogged down in a long exercise of trying to determine whether a specific act is a sin, and fail to see that the dimensions of life are not necessarily contained in that question; a few dimensions are but certainly not all.

Oh, I agree. My interest in posing the question was mostly “academic”.

It is not to suggest that we should not be aware of sinful acts, or be casual about them. But at the same time, one can presume that one is a good Catholic because one does not practice birth control, and miss the point that being a good Catholic consists in far more than simply avoiding sin.

I find this thread very interesting in part because the nature of the questions brought up here go to the very essence of why the Church teaches as She does on contraception.

I see the OP’s point and I think it is a valid one, but my point is that we should all understand the basis of this thing if we are to answer objections.

As I said in another post I sometimes get the impression NFP is promoted simply as an alternative to contraception without understanding the theology behind it and that would seem to become almost a legalistic understanding rather than a broad embrace of the principles involved. Perhaps I am overstating it a bit. Then again, the idea of legalism is overused most of the time.

 

[fix]

cynic:

why is that the definition of objectification? what end is there other than personal satisfaction if they don’t desire to have a child? Isn’t that just using each other for an end? How is it not. The catholic church has defined ‘objectification’ in a way that it sees fit, but it’s completely outside of logic. All phsyical attraction is to some extent objectifying, and if a couple is acting on an urge for phsyical intimacy without children as the gaol, then the abilility for sperm to meet egg is irrelevant to their intent and what’s going in their heads.

If you follow the discussion here you would see that in part I would agree with the above post. By that I mean even if one uses NFP with the same intention as one who contracepts then I would say that objectification has happend.

Not wanting childern for a legitimate reason may be reasonable, but intentionally separating the two uses of the act ordained by God is wrong. That few grasp this critical reality does not mean it does not exist.

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by fix
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.

cynic:

why is that the definition of objectification? what end is there other than personal satisfaction if they don’t desire to have a child? Isn’t that just using each other for an end? How is it not. The catholic church has defined ‘objectification’ in a way that it sees fit, but it’s completely outside of logic. All phsyical attraction is to some extent objectifying, and if a couple is acting on an urge for phsyical intimacy without children as the gaol, then the abilility for sperm to meet egg is irrelevant to their intent and what’s going in their heads.

You “logic” is correct is you only understand marriage in it’s essence as a civil union guaranteed by contract. The Catholic understanding of marriage is that it is as sacrament (a sign of the sacred) and that is is a covenant (relationship) of love.

"All phsyical attraction is to some extent objectifying" – this is a brash and revealing statement that is true only if one removes the *person relationship * from the conjugal union, which is what I took fix to be pointing out. Conjugal relationship is what protects one from objectifying and using the other for one’s own personal gratification (which is what ABC actually does and practically lends itself to), and sacramental marriage calls couples to the higher realm of sanctification and holiness in their marriage covenant and expressions of conjugal union.

I suggest that you plug in person relationship (“marriage covenant”) into your equation and see if your “logic” does not compute differently, as in *conjugal union * (the act of uniting the relationship of spouse).

conjugal, defn; Of or relating to marriage or the relationship of spouses.

union, defn; The *act of uniting * or the state of being united; The state of matrimony; marriage; Sexual intercourse.

*Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company./*SIZE]

MARRIAGE. As a natural institution, the lasting union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love.

Christ elevated marriage to a sacrament of the New Law. Christian spouses signify and partake of the mystery of that unity and fruitful love which exists between Christ and his Church, helping each other attain to holiness in their married life and in the rearing and education of their children.

Pocket Catholic Dictionary - John A. Hardon, S.J.
Abridged Edition of the Modern Catholic Dictionary
Copyright © 2003 Inter Mirifica

 

[Halo]

As always beautifully put.

 

[cynic]

setter:

"All phsyical attraction is to some extent objectifying" – this is a brash and revealing statement that is true only if one removes the *person relationship *from the conjugal union, which is what I took fix to be pointing out. Conjugal relationship is what protects one from objectifying and using the other for one’s own personal gratification (which is what ABC actually does and practically lends itself to), and sacramental marriage calls couples to the higher realm of sanctification and holiness in their marriage covenant and expressions of conjugal union.

I didn’t mean to suggest that physical gratification is the most important part of sex, that would be grotesque. But your description of the marital relationship would be alien to most people, becuase it’s put in such bizzare language

What does “and sacramental marriage calls couples to the higher realm of sanctification and holiness in their marriage covenant and expressions of conjugal union” actually means in reality? It seems like ‘unity’ is a religiouse euphimism for intimacy and expressions of affection and the associated bonding (which may sound a bit liberal and airy fairy for you). It think it’s more that catholics (and some protestants) are deeply uncomfortable with this, and thus dress it up in such a way to make unrecognisable and… less human.

By the way abc may lend itself to objecitication ie. making it easier, but it can’t actually objecitify somebody, that occurrs in the brain, not the body. If a husband was unaware that his wife was on the pill, then would you say that he was objecitifying her in their ‘relations’?

 

[bear06]

By the way abc may lend itself to objecitication ie. making it easier, but it can’t actually objecitify somebody, that occurrs in the brain, not the body. If a husband was unaware that his wife was on the pill, then would you say that he was objecitifying her in their ‘relations’?

I think facilitate might be the better word. And to your question, wouldn’t it be the wife objectifying her husband in this case?

 

[setter]

cynic:

I didn’t mean to suggest that physical gratification is the most important part of sex, that would be grotesque. But your description of the marital relationship would be alien to most people, becuase it’s put in such bizzare language

**What does ** “and sacramental marriage calls couples to the higher realm of sanctification and holiness in their marriage covenant and expressions of conjugal union” actually means in reality? It seems like ‘unity’ is a religiouse euphimism for intimacy and expressions of affection and the associated bonding (which may sound a bit liberal and airy fairy for you). **It think it’s more ** **that catholics ** (and some protestants) are deeply uncomfortable **** with this, and thus dress it up in such a way to make unrecognisable and… less human.

By the way abc may lend itself to objecitication ie. making it easier, but it can’t actually objecitify somebody, that occurrs in the brain, not the body. If a husband was unaware that his wife was on the pill, then would you say that he was objecitifying her in their ‘relations’?

At the risk of going to a superficial level where the essentials of sacramental marital love will be neglected and overlooked, I will apply the KISS formula for authentic Catholic marital love:

God + couple + making love = holy prayer

 

[vluvski]

otm:

Ok, here we disagree. I would use the word "may’ instead of “are”. The goal, by and large, of ABC is to remove all responsiblity in how the gift of sex is used, by removing the effect of pregnancy. It is far more likely to result in an air of self gratification than NFP; why else would so many women have the feeling that they are to be an “on demand” sex partner as opposed to being a spouse?

While someone who understands why/how NFP is different from ABC would understand why someone would claim that ABC removes responsibility from the gift of sex, etc, my entire point is that someone who does not already understand that difference is ignorant to the need for the two to remain united, thus they do not consider that in deciding how to reach their goal. In other words, I disagree that removing responsibility is the *intent * of couples practicing NFP. They simply don’t know they have that responsibility in the first place, and it seems unreasonable to assume that is their goal.
You later suggest utilizing that “used” feeling to refute ABC. This makes a much better case for NFP than trying to convinve them that NFP is open to life and ABC is not. Just look at SemperJase’s thread over in Family Life to see what I’m talking about.

otm:

We disagree that they are not defined. Again, it has to do with who is doing the explaining, and how well.

This is a valid point. When NFP promoters talk about NFP being open to life, they are talking about the means. Since ABC users presumably have not even considered the essence of the means itself being open to life, they automatically assume that it refers to the intent. This is why great care must be taken if someone chooses to use this phrase, and why I prefer to exclude it altogether. I have yet to see anyone be swayed one iota by the “open to life” argument if they’re not already leaning toward NFP. This is the kind of thing you should only say once things start to click, IMO.

otm:

One can not be open to discernment while using ABC if one understands (that is, accepts) that it is an intrinsically evil act. And given the state of catechesis …

I don’t think this contradicts anything I’ve said so far. If it does, I misspoke. I was saying that “open to discernment” could not be readily (mis)applied to ABC by someone trying to argue that there is no difference, unlike the phrases “open to life” and “the couple’s intent.” The whole point of this thread is that as an intrinsically evil act, ABC deserves no discussion of the couple’s reason for using it. As I stated before, the “open to life” argument is pretty weak until you have already begun to realize that it is about the act itself being fundamentally different.

 

[vluvski]

otm (my emphasis added):

Again, NFP is always open to life by the act itself. ABC is not open to life by the act itself. To say that one is (by intention) open to life while having sex and practicing NFP is not to engage in an oxymoron, or to engage in a contradiction of terms. To say that one is open to life while using ABC is to say that either one does not understand that ABC is intrinsically evil, or to engage in an oxymoron.

Right. It is only an oxymoron to people who understand that “open to life” refers to the act itself, not the intent. The person promoting NFP to the ABC user should assume that the ABC user does not understand that ABC is intrinsically evil, and therefore should avoid the phrase “open to life” and other such phrases that can be misunderstood to refer to intent rather than to the act itself.

otm:

perhaps we are talking to different sets of people.

Perhaps, but if they’re not willing to discuss it, then the “open to life” controversy will never come up anyway. If you can get far enough in the argument to begin talking about how the act in NFP is “open to life” and the act in ABC is not, then you’ve had enough time to plant a seed, possibly in a way that is more effective than the confusing “open to life” phrase.

otm:

Again, what I have seen convince some people is the fact that ABC has not delivered what it promised: better sex and better (closer) relationships between the partners.

Yes, and I think this is a great approach as well! I don’t have any issues with this avenue, as it generally does not call upon the “open to life” argument. Any approach that gets people to at least try NFP is a good one, because most couples will begin to experience that conversion away from the so-called “contraceptive mindset” that can be found in NFP users as well as ABC users. The problem arises when people try to demonstrate that ABC is intrinsically evil by using language that ABC users (understandably, IMO) confuse with the intent instead of the act itself.

otm:

Again, we partly disagree. She may be thinking that, initially. However, more and more evidence is coming in that there are a lot of unhappy marriages - unhappy men and unhappy women - due to the feeling they eventually recognize as based on sex as an orgasm as opposed to sex as a communication on the deepest level.

I think you’re reading something between the lines in my posts that isn’t there. I’m still confused as to how you thought I was saying that sex was required during fertile times, especially if the couple had sex during infertile times. I clearly stated that NFP is fundamentally different from ABC in that ABC is intrinsically evil and NFP is not. ANYWAY… I’ll say again that I think the practical approach that ABC simply doesn’t deliver is quite effective. We could say something like, “Look, you and I (or other example/hypothetical women) both set out with what we believed to be a valid reason to avoid pregnancy. How have our decisions on how to go about that effected our marriages differently?” Once the different effects are highlighted, we might be presented with an opportunity to further explain how JPII’s Theology of the Body can help us understand why the effects are different.

 

[otm]

vluvski:

I actually ran into this EXACT situation several months ago. My friend did, in my opinion, have a valid reason to avoid pregnancy for the time being, and I ran out of opportunities to show her why NFP could be the answer because she was so intent on convincing me that she definitely shouldn’t try to get pregnant right now. Knowing I am Catholic, I think she assumed I would try to tell her to have a baby right away.

Right there, it would seem, was the problem, and right there was the chance to address her major issue - something that works. NFP practiced properly has as good if not better chance of accomplishing what she needed, and comes with some additional benefits ABC doesn’t - no chemicals, no offsetting natural body chemistry, and the opportunity to put both parties in the position of growing closer (yes, it does take work); isn’t abortificant… Perhaps the issue was you got stuck in the issue of sufficient reason.

I suspect part of the whole issue is the lingering suspicion that NFP is about as reliable as the rythym method, which was not exactly what one would call reliable. If people don’t know of the success rate using NFP properly taught, they aren’t going to listen because whether they are right or wrong about the legitimacy of spacing children or not having any, or any more, they have made up their mind in terms of that decision. The only answer they see to the decision they have made is ABC, because either they see NFP as unreliable (which it isn’t), or someone either is trying, or sounds like they are trying, to talk them out of their decision about children.

If they hear that you are doing that, even if that is not what you said, but it is what they hear, discussion over. They have already shut down.

Interestingly, there is some research that indicates that women are more concerned about the use of NFP than men, for the reason that women fear that men will not cooperate, or will not be able to cooperate. men actually seem more open to NFP than women; a sad statement about what women think of men in general, about men’s sexual urges and ability to control them, about the respect men will (or won’t) have … an interesting, but sad commentary.

 

[otm]

fix:

As I said in another post I sometimes get the impression NFP is promoted simply as an alternative to contraception without understanding the theology behind it and that would seem to become almost a legalistic understanding rather than a broad embrace of the principles involved. Perhaps I am overstating it a bit. Then again, the idea of legalism is overused most of the time.

I would agree that the term “legalism” has been used in discussions of moral theology as a means of proverbaly throwing out the baby with the bath water. However, the problem of legalism is one that is very easy to fall into; most people want short answers to complex questions and that tendency lends itself all too well to the end results of legalism.

Vatican 2 intended to get moral theology off of an almost strictly legal approach to life and life’s quuestions and into a more Scriptural approach. However, subsequently, moral theologians lost their way in the secular philosophy of situational ethics.

But that is grist for another thread…

 

[svoboda]

But if birth control is “gravely evil” then why don’t good people see it? I know good people, very kind, caring, family-oriented, and they use artificial birth control.

I’ve told both my parents the Catholic “open to life/complete gift of self” argument and it made little sense to them.

Everyone agrees that murder, rape, lying, stealing, cheating, abuse, and other clearly sinful things are evil.

But not so with birth control, even most Catholics use it.

To me this is evidence that the Church’s teachings are out of date.