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

[LittleDeb]

svoboda:

One of the big problems with things like Theology of the Body is that the man who wrote it has never been married, possibly never even had sex. From my perspective it seems that there is not enough emphasis (and in a way almost a demonization) of the physical pleasure derived from sex. The Church teaches that sex for physical pleasure is evil/lustful, but why? It is almost reminiscent of the gnostics who hated the body. From my perspective doing something (that doesn’t hurt anyone) simply because it is physically pleasant is one of the purest motivations a person can have, it is very basic, almost thoughtless/biological, and in my opinion sinless. Personally I am far, far more disturbed by mortifiers who deliberately torture their bodies for some kind of spiritual pleasure/payoff. That to me is far more unnatural and perverse than having sex for physical pleasure.

Plus, given that couples may be married for some 20 fertile years and have only 2 or 3 children (or maybe even 5) during that time, but will probably have sex countless numbers of times for the purpose of love, emotional closeness, and the dreaded physical please, that I would say the primary purpose of sex is not procreative but unitive, and sex for the purpose of procreation happens comparatively rarely in marriages.

I admire your thoughtfulness in this reply. Please forgive me for noting your age, but I couldn’t help but remember that I thought nearly identically to this at your same age.

You are on a good path toward learning Truth this way. Sex is pleasurable and that is good. Period. What it might take you a few years to see is how easily that good can be used for evil. This whole discussion is about means, ends, and intent.

Let’s take 3 of the seven deadly sins to help you understand, Gluttony, Sloth, and Lust.

Eating is pleasurable. That pleasure is good. We eat for nutrition first and foremost. Eating is pleasurable so that we will do it towards the good, nutrition. However, if we eat excessively just for the pleasure or corrupt eating by vomiting just so we can eat more, we are guilty of gluttony.

Sleeping is pleasurable. That pleasure is good. We sleep to grow our bodies first and foremost. Sleeping is pleasurable so that we will do it towards the good, growth. However if we sleep excessively just for pleasure we are guilty of sloth.

Sexual intercourse is pleasurable. That pleasure is good. We have sex to propagate the spiecies first and foremost. Sex is pleasurable so that we will do it towards the good, procreation. However if we have sex excessively just for the pleasure or corrupt sex with contraception just so we can have more, we are guilty of lust.

May I also recommend this article here on CA. catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9804fea1.asp "That Celibate Bachelor was Right! You would be surprised how much an unmarried virgin can know about sexuality when guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[svoboda]

magdelaine:

Not to get too personal, but I’m someone for whom using NFP is a little more difficult. My “signs” are basically the same day after day, which to use while trying not to concieve means that only 15 post-ovulatory days have intercourse for only 9 days out of every 32 to 36 days is certainly a discipline, it is not one I out of 32-36 day cycle are “safe”, and 6 of those days is during my period. While being able to have felt myself called to personally.

In any case it’s a moot point right now as I’m “ecologically breastfeeding”.

But I trust that you have been 100% successful in preventing pregnancy?

What effect would you say have the long abstinences had on your marriage? How does your husband feel about it?

 

[LittleDeb]

magdelaine:

Not to get too personal, but I’m someone for whom using NFP is a little more difficult. My “signs” are basically the same day after day, which to use while trying not to concieve means that only 15 post-ovulatory days out of 32-36 day cycle are “safe”, and 6 of those days is during my period. While being able to have intercourse for only 9 days out of every 32 to 36 days is certainly a discipline, it is not one I have felt myself called to personally.

In any case it’s a moot point right now as I’m “ecologically breastfeeding”.

I am off-topic here but please PM me for some great suggestions for your circumstances. I have cycles that have ranged from 27-40 days. NFP has been easy for me by better use and understanding of the signs. For example 6 day periods can be better read. NFP is just information. It is the use of that information that can bring about sin. Through NFP you can heal the troubles causing long periods and other unclear signs. My heart goes out to you in your struggles. NFP is such a gift since it can heal infertility and make each marriage act so much better!

 

[svoboda]

LittleDeb:

I admire your thoughtfulness in this reply. Please forgive me for noting your age, but I couldn’t help but remember that I thought nearly identically to this at your same age.

Well, I won’t debate being young and inexperienced. And who knows, maybe when I grow up my views will change, but maybe not. Most adults with experience don’t agree with Church teaching either.

Let’s take 3 of the seven deadly sins to help you understand, Gluttony, Sloth, and Lust.

Eating is pleasurable. That pleasure is good. We eat for nutrition first and foremost. Eating is pleasurable so that we will do it towards the good, nutrition. However, if we eat excessively just for the pleasure or corrupt eating by vomiting just so we can eat more, we are guilty of gluttony.

But I don’t think this is a good analogy. Bulimia or overeating are in a way psychological problems that human beings have. I don’t think either of them is sinful. I don’t think people who are bulimic or who overeat should feel guilty about what they do, I think they should get psychological help.

Similarly if someone was addicted to sexual intercourse, engaged in it excessively and in a way that harmed their health, I would also advise them to get professional help. I would not say they were sinning.

Sexual intercourse is pleasurable. That pleasure is good. We have sex to propagate the spiecies first and foremost. Sex is pleasurable so that we will do it towards the good, procreation. However if we have sex excessively just for the pleasure or corrupt sex with contraception just so we can have more, we are guilty of lust.

May I also recommend this article here on CA. catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9804fea1.asp "That Celibate Bachelor was Right! You would be surprised how much an unmarried virgin can know about sexuality when guided by the Holy Spirit.

I have actually read that article! To an extent I agree with it. Sexual activity can definitely become perverted, people can definitely use each other as sex objects. And in a way the abstinence required by NFP may protect couples from that.

But this is more like disconnecting the internet to protect your family from internet pornography.

I don’t think birth control causes people to use each other, I think it makes it easier just as the internet makes it really easy to look at pornography.

If people truly love and respect each other, if they want to nurture each other and protect each other, then I don’t think birth control will take away from that. Birth control is just a physical device, it doesn’t have anythign to do with people’s love for each other, their commitment, their tenderness. It is just a way for people to regulate the number of kids they have!

Here’s a moral dilemma for you: consider women in Africa, there the maternal mortality rate is huge (i.e. each pregnancy carries a real threat of death). There women’s rights are not exactly a big thing, and men may not respect the abstinence required for NFP to be successful. Should African women use birth control to protect themselves from the risk of death due to childbirth, to prevent themselves from having more children than they can feed, or should they listen to the Church and hope that their sexist husbands will respect them and abstain?

 

[Palamite]

svoboda,

May I ask what your source is on this matter? Do you know women for whom NFP simply cannot work for this reason?

While I don’t have any statistics on just how common this is, I’m aware of it precisely because it is my own wife’s situation and her physician informed her that it wasn’t a sign she was unhealthy - it’s just the situation some women find themselves in, and it happens enough to be an issue for many women (though certainly not most.)

One of the big problems with things like Theology of the Body is that the man who wrote it has never been married, possibly never even had sex.

Well my own criticisms of Theology of the Body come from a somewhat different angle. While obviously married men bring something special to the Priestly ministry (as is evident in the Orthodox Church), I’ve never been a big believer that one must have experienced something personally or first-hand to have a good understanding of it or to be able to make moral judgements about it. So I would never go as far as to simply discount say, a Bishop’s pastoral advice (since in Orthodoxy, all Bishops are taken from monasteries) for the simple reason he may not have ever been married (though certainly there are some men who have become monks after their spouses died, and were later made Bishops.)

My problem with the Theology of the Body justifications for prohibiting “ABC” have to do with the somewhat over-idealized portrayal of marriage it sometimes puts forward as normative, and the faulty triadology (doctrine on the Holy Trinity) which it seeks to employ as being analogous to the marital relationship. Also the arguments used from this basis strike me as “after the fact” considerations which do not reflect at all the concerns which were the underpinning of old prohibitions of “contraception” to begin with. Basically, the concern of those Church Fathers who spoke on this topic was the relationship of what we’d call “contraception” to abortion.

 

[LittleDeb]

svoboda:

Most adults with experience don’t agree with Church teaching either.

I totally disagree with “most.”

But I don’t think this is a good analogy. Bulimia or overeating are in a way psychological problems that human beings have. I don’t think either of them is sinful. I don’t think people who are bulimic or who overeat should feel guilty about what they do, I think they should get psychological help.

Similarly if someone was addicted to sexual intercourse, engaged in it excessively and in a way that harmed their health, I would also advise them to get professional help. I would not say they were sinning.

What if the use of contraception does cause sexual addiction? That is one of the best arguments from the Church. By severing the procreative aspect, couples are allowing themselves to be slaves of sex rather than the masters of their own sexual desires.

Here’s a moral dilemma for you: consider women in Africa, there the maternal mortality rate is huge (i.e. each pregnancy carries a real threat of death). There women’s rights are not exactly a big thing, and men may not respect the abstinence required for NFP to be successful. Should African women use birth control to protect themselves from the risk of death due to childbirth, to prevent themselves from having more children than they can feed, or should they listen to the Church and hope that their sexist husbands will respect them and abstain?

Since you read the article you would know that this is the exact case the author presents. She shows how contraception doesn’t elevate respect. It lowers it.

The struggle I have in this thread is that your posts keep illustrating the OP’s original concern. These examples continually confuse means and intent. The phrase “open to life” means something different to everyone. NFP is a moral means to space conception. Contraception is not.

 

[LittleDeb]

Palamite:

While I don’t have any statistics on just how common this is, I’m aware of it precisely because it is my own wife’s situation and her physician informed her that it wasn’t a sign she was unhealthy - it’s just the situation some women find themselves in, and it happens enough to be an issue for many women (though certainly not most.)

If a physician says NFP doesn’t work he or she is mistaken. NFP can help heal the things that are “broken.” Your wife might not even know she is unhealthy precisely because doctors like this just blow women off with, “It’s normal.” No, it’s not.

Please PM me for ways you can help her. Her long term health is much more important than a doctor who just blows off symptoms.

 

[Palamite]

LittleDeb,

If a physician says NFP doesn’t work he or she is mistaken. NFP can help heal the things that are “broken.” Your wife might not even know she is unhealthy precisely because doctors like this just blow women off with, “It’s normal.” No, it’s not.

I appreciate your concern. However, her situation (irregular cycle) is long term, and her consultations with physicians on it were unconnected to the issue of family planning in any form, since they occured before we were even married. And while I don’t want to doubt you here, her irregular cycles have been shown to not have anything to do with another underlying health problem. Sometimes it just is how it is for some women.

However, you’re more than welcom to PM me if you do have some information which could be of help to her. I’m sure she’d be happy to look at it.

 

[svoboda]

LittleDeb:

If a physician says NFP doesn’t work he or she is mistaken. NFP can help heal the things that are “broken.” Your wife might not even know she is unhealthy precisely because doctors like this just blow women off with, “It’s normal.” No, it’s not.

Please PM me for ways you can help her. Her long term health is much more important than a doctor who just blows off symptoms.

I’m curious, how can measuring when you’re fertile help to heal you?

 

[magdelaine]

Lots of weird hormonal things, like your thyroid being hypo or hyper active, or premenopausal “estrogen dominance” can be totally obvious when you chart. Also, because you know your cycle, you are much more likely to be tuned in if you start having irregular bleeding caused by fibroids, a cyst, or even cancer, and be able to seek help for the condition early. NFP doesn’t “cure” you but it is an excellent diagnostic.

 

[bear06]

Palamite:

LittleDeb,

I appreciate your concern. However, her situation (irregular cycle) is long term, and her consultations with physicians on it were unconnected to the issue of family planning in any form, since they occured before we were even married. And while I don’t want to doubt you here, her irregular cycles have been shown to not have anything to do with another underlying health problem. Sometimes it just is how it is for some women.

However, you’re more than welcom to PM me if you do have some information which could be of help to her. I’m sure she’d be happy to look at it.

NFP works for people with irregular cycles as well as those with regular cycles. I’m not quite sure why people are under the impression that you ca’t use it with irregular cycles. You can even use it when you are nursing and haven’t had a cycle yet. When a woman ovulates, certain symptoms appear before that ovulation. The symptoms aren’t simply there at certain times of the month. I have a friend with very irregular cycles who’s been using NFP for 4 years (she has some very serious health problems).

 

[katiedidbug]

While I would agree that our society is extremly selfish in its contraception obsession, I still think that those who practice NFP are on the right track if done for the correct reasons. Those who practice NFP out of selfish reason and are truly not open to life are defeating the purpose of NFP. I hesitate to lump faithful NFP users who are truly open to God’s will into the same category as those who use the pill, condoms, or some other equally evil form of birth control. For one, many NFP couples are truly open to family and would be delighted if they were to get pregnant. For two, NFP couples show a respect for life.
Like I said, there is such a difference in those couples who are really open to life and those who have closed all doors. I was recently eating supper with a couple, and I asked when they thought they would like to start having kids. The women said she only wanted one, but right now she is focusing on her career. That, my friends, is an example of a selfish choice. There is no need for the woman to focus on her career. She is of child-bearing age, her husband is an engineer, and she has no reason to be postponing pregnancy. There is a stark contrast in their attitudes and my two good friends’ attitude. They practice NFP, but would still be thrilled with a pregnancy. They are open to life, not opposed to it. Right now, the husband is finishing his degree, and the wife is excited about being a stay at home mom (the way God intended it). When God intends it, they will conceive.
Just like them, my husband and I are open to life. We don’t use birth control, nor do we use NFP. I am not against NFP. It’s just impossible for me to chart right now because of cylce irregularity.
In conclusion, I think there’s a big difference in NFP and other forms of birth control.

 

[katiedidbug]

svoboda:

I agree that contraception that causes abortions is evil, but I don’t see anything wrong with barrier methods.

Snce all agree that it’s not evil to limit the size of one’s family, what does it matter if it’s done by meticulous measurement of NFP or the more convenient use of a condom/spermicide?

Everyone does not agree with this statement. As a matter of fact, I would absolutely disagree. I do think it’s wrong to limit the size of our families. If God intends life, he will give it. What right do we have to limit what God will give? That’s ridiculous!
This is just another example of our selfish society. Our culture intends to limit children so that parents may lead selfish lives. This selfishness includes anything from having the nicest cars or house that one may not be able to afford with many children or a woman refusing to stay at home with her impressionable children because her “career” is so important. How ridiculous. **

 

[vluvski]

katiedidbug:

I do think it’s wrong to limit the size of our families. If God intends life, he will give it. What right do we have to limit what God will give? That’s ridiculous!

We have the right that the church affirms to limit the size of our families. The Church very wisely leaves the issue of discerning a serious reason to the couple. We must be very careful not to assume the ambitious mother with a career is limiting her family for selfish reasons.
While I truly believe that God calls most women to the path that is inherent to our identity as women, we can’t assume that God does not call some women differently. We also can’t assume that the couple who says they’re done “because they have two” doesn’t have sufficient reason.
Judge not, lest ye be judged. We have a responsibility to be an example and speak positively about the potential of expanding our families, but I find a militant pro-big-family-for-everyone stance to be judgemental at best, and probably detrimental to the overall cause.
We can agree that responsible NFP users should not be lumped in with contraceptors. I would take that a step further and contend that irresponsible NFP users should not be lumped with contraceptors either. At least they are showing respect for the teachings of the church and for their own bodies. I truly believe that as more people “catch on” that, when/if a serious need to avoid does arive, NFP is the way to do, the average family size will begin to grow because they have allowed that much more room in their marriage bed to allow God to do His work both through increased openness and to a lesser degree through “impossible” pregnancies.

 

[magdelaine]

Everyone does not agree with this statement. As a matter of fact, I would absolutely disagree. I do think it’s wrong to limit the size of our families. If God intends life, he will give it. What right do we have to limit what God will give? That’s ridiculous!
This is just another example of our selfish society. Our culture intends to limit children so that parents may lead selfish lives. This selfishness includes anything from having the nicest cars or house that one may not be able to afford with many children or a woman refusing to stay at home with her impressionable children because her “career” is so important. How ridiculous.

How’s this for a quandry: I think the above emphasized is true, so true. However I also don’t think that using a condom or NFP determines whether a family is “open to life”, thus the reason for the original thread. Families can be selfish with contraception and NFP, families can be generous and large with contraception and NFP. The arguments against contrception as stated by the church are much more about making a natural act “unnatural”. Which apparently only applies to sex, because the Church has no problems with things like heart transplants and shoes and television, etc. Interesting, but overworked and on a fundamental level it just doesn’t make sense. Sorry.

 

[katiedidbug]

I was a bit heated in my thoughts. I do not think that every woman should have a large family and shouldn’t have a career. I think, though, that women should be open to the idea of whatever family God intends. For a lot of people, that will only be one or two, and that’s fine. I do think that big families are great, but certainly not for everyone.
I think that the couple who uses birth control to limit family size is committing a sin, though.
As a former Protestant, I had no idea that birth control was even wrong! I used to be on birth control. Many people just don’t know or understand the Church’s teaching.
I was told to “judge, lest not I be judged.” While I don’t mean to judge anyone, I certainly believe in holding people accountable, just as I would hold my brothers and sisters accountable. Sorry if I appear to be judgmental. Certainly not my intent!

 

[vluvski]

Katie, it appears I misunderstood your comments about big families and women with careers. When you were talking about “clearly selfish reasons” and “I do think it’s wrong to limit the size of our families” I assumed you felt you could apply that to anyone and everyone who doesn’t have an obvious reason like extreme poverty or a serious health condition. I *totally agree * with the statement that women should be open to whatever family God intends. This captures the entire essence of the need for discernment before applying NFP, which has essentially become the topic of this thread it seems. It is not judgemental to hold others accountable, but again, that was a misunderstanding on my part of your attitude toward family size and women’s roles. And contraception is absolutely a sin even with a legitimate reason to limit family size.

Perhaps I need to keep my own assumptions to a minimum as well

 

[LittleDeb]

magdelaine:

How’s this for a quandry: I think the above emphasized is true, so true. However I also don’t think that using a condom or NFP determines whether a family is “open to life”, thus the reason for the original thread. Families can be selfish with contraception and NFP, families can be generous and large with contraception and NFP. The arguments against contrception as stated by the church are much more about making a natural act “unnatural”. Which apparently only applies to sex, because the Church has no problems with things like heart transplants and shoes and television, etc. Interesting, but overworked and on a fundamental level it just doesn’t make sense. Sorry.

This is so well stated. There was a time in my life that I would have agreed and said nearly the same thing.

At the time, I put more weight into general selfishness than into particular selfishness. It bothered me THAT people were selfish when it was more important to note HOW people were selfish. Selfishness spills out onto all of us. The selfish sex act of contraception affects the couple in every facet of their lives. Since the marital act is the very foundation of our existence, selfishness within it has far reaching repercussions.

The very foundation of contraception is contained in its definition. It means ‘against the beginning.’ The topics being discussed here are actually two separate ones. 1. That the means of contraception is inherently evil. 2. That NFP is not contraception. I don’t like the term ‘birth control’ (especially since it was coined by Margaret Sanger,) but birth control is acceptable. It is contraception that is inherently evil. For something to be ‘inherently evil’ it must have certain qualities built into it causing it to be ‘evil.’

I think the most important thing I have taken from this thread is that the definitions of contraception seem very clear to some and very hazy to others. Not being “open to life” is built into contraception by its very nature regardless of intent. What seems to be debateable is if being “open to life” is built into NFP. There is only one reason I would say “open to life” is built into NFP. The act. Each marital act is open to life. Those who are presently not open to life do not participate in the act.

So the question remains if it is NOT lack of openness to life that causes contraception to be inherently evil then what is it? Those who say contraception is not inherently evil would say, “see nothing causes it to be inherently evil, so it isn’t. Intent is actually more important.” Since I used to be one of these folks I can speak from that perspective.

So what happened to me to cause me to say, “The Church is right! Contraception is inherently evil!” I will give you a BIG hint. It was NOT my lack of openness to life. But ‘open to life’ was at its very core.

 

[uncleauberon]

I’ve been trying to think of an example/metaphor to illustrate some of these points of ABC vs. NFP

Try this one :

Our Church provides 6 masses over the weekend between Saturday Vigils and Sunday Mornings and Nights.

It is a legitimate and Holy thing to attend any one of these Masses.

And we may attend them according to our own needs and schedules.

Let’s say that we know that Annoying Aunt Martha always attends the the 10:30 am Mass.

This week we just don’t want to see her and get dragged into a big conversation with her this week. We see her often at other times and we don’t have any other obligations that require us to talk with her on a weekly basis.

So we decide to “avoid” the 10:30am Mass and go to Mass at another time.

There is no sin in this.

On the Other hand, if we really wanted to attend the 10:30 am Mass because we really like the choir
… then we could wear masks and when Aunt Martha gives us the sign of peace we would pretend we don’t know her. After Mass she may even comment to us that we remind her of her Nephew & Neice - but we persist in the charade to fool her.

While Attending Mass is still a good thing , there would be the sin of Deception against Aunt Martha.

Similarly, in Both NFP and ABC sex is always a good, holy and sacred act between married couples.

But, in NFP we don’t pretend to be something that we are not (infertile).

Choosing when to have relations is not a sin. What we do when we are having relations may be a sin.

Think on this - If a couple because work or health reasons only happen to be available for conjugal realations during Phase 3 (whether they know it or not) they are not sinning - they are still “open to life” even though they may know that it is very unlikely.

There is no reason for them to abstain from relations because they want to get pregnant, as if they should only have relations when pregnancy is possible.

One person has phrased this as “having Sex while avoiding pregnancy”.

I submit another perspective

ABC is the couple’s attempt to control their fertility.
NFP is the couple’s attempt to control themselves.

– ABC is always a sin of commission
– NFP is only possibly a sin of ommission

Thoughts ?

todd

I’ll submit it – Artificial Birth Control is really
Artificial Fertility Control
not
Control of Births
not
Control of Self

 

[magdelaine]

I’m curious, does ABC include withdrawal?