Openness to Life?

[Fogwalker]

I was always taught that natural family planning (NFP) is morally legitimate, because a couple using NFP is still open to God’s gift of life, which is what He intends to give us with sex. I’ve also been taught that other forms of contraception are closed to God’s gift of life, which makes them illegitimate.

The rates of conception with NFP and condoms are on the same order of magnitude, and are significantly higher than the rates seen with the pill or with permanent forms of contraception. Maybe this is the engineer in me taking over, but statistically speaking, the NFP-practitioner is just as “open to life” as the condom user.

I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on this. I expect two posts immediately: “Your sources must be wrong” and “Condoms aren’t natural, cycles are.” So to save everyone’s time:

My sources are Catholic-friendly websites for NFP data and non-Catholic-friendly websites for condom data. To my surprise, the condom-friendly sites reported a higher condom failure rate than NFP failure rate. In other words, I chose the most “favorable” sources for both sets of data in an attempt to offset any bias from either side.

I never bought the argument that condoms aren’t “natural” but NFP is “natural”. People use plenty of things from our environment for good purposes - the fact that it’s not a part of our bodies doesn’t prove or disprove that it’s part of God’s plan for us. And we needed significant advances in completely manmade materials and science to develop such accurate NFP methods.

Go to town! The Church always wins, but I still like to know why.

 

[Rence]

I was always taught that natural family planning (NFP) is morally legitimate, because a couple using NFP is still open to God’s gift of life, which is what He intends to give us with sex. I’ve also been taught that other forms of contraception are closed to God’s gift of life, which makes them illegitimate.

The rates of conception with NFP and condoms are on the same order of magnitude, and are significantly higher than the rates seen with the pill or with permanent forms of contraception. Maybe this is the engineer in me taking over, but statistically speaking, the NFP-practitioner is just as “open to life” as the condom user.

I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on this. I expect two posts immediately: “Your sources must be wrong” and “Condoms aren’t natural, cycles are.” So to save everyone’s time:

My sources are Catholic-friendly websites for NFP data and non-Catholic-friendly websites for condom data. To my surprise, the condom-friendly sites reported a higher condom failure rate than NFP failure rate. In other words, I chose the most “favorable” sources for both sets of data in an attempt to offset any bias from either side.

I never bought the argument that condoms aren’t “natural” but NFP is “natural”. People use plenty of things from our environment for good purposes - the fact that it’s not a part of our bodies doesn’t prove or disprove that it’s part of God’s plan for us. And we needed significant advances in completely manmade materials and science to develop such accurate NFP methods.

Go to town! The Church always wins, but I still like to know why.

The Church doesn’t forbid condoms because they aren’t “natrual”. They forbid condom usage because it eliminates the “unitive property” from the marital embrace. The Church teaches that in order for the marital embrace to be licit, there must be two properties present: 1) the unitive property and 2) the procreative property.

Condoms eliminate both the unitive property and the procreative property. NFP does neither…

 

[Fogwalker]

The Church doesn’t forbid condoms because they aren’t “natrual”. They forbid condom usage because it eliminates the “unitive property” from the marital embrace. The Church teaches that in order for the marital embrace to be licit, there must be two properties present: 1) the unitive property and 2) the procreative property.

Condoms eliminate both the unitive property and the procreative property. NFP does neither…

The unitive property thing is what I was missing, thank you. But my point was that condoms don’t eliminate the procreative property any more than NFP does. From a scientific point of view, most statistics would say that perfect condom use is more open to procreation than perfect NFP practice…

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium of the Catechism issued by Pope Benedict XVI (short and sweet)

1. What are the goods of conjugal love to which sexuality is ordered?

2360-2361
2397-2398

The goods of conjugal love, which for those who are baptized is sanctified by the sacrament of Matrimony, are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an openness to the procreation of life.

1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

[sw85]

The unitive property thing is what I was missing, thank you. But my point was that condoms don’t eliminate the procreative property any more than NFP does. From a scientific point of view, most statistics would say that perfect condom use is more open to procreation than perfect NFP practice…

“Open to procreation” is a function of will, not of consequence.

At any rate, it is very likely that these statistics (if indeed they are accurate) represent the ineffectiveness of condoms, not the effectiveness of NFP.

 

[Debora123]

I was always taught that natural family planning (NFP) is morally legitimate, because a couple using NFP is still open to God’s gift of life, which is what He intends to give us with sex. I’ve also been taught that other forms of contraception are closed to God’s gift of life, which makes them illegitimate.

The rates of conception with NFP and condoms are on the same order of magnitude, and are significantly higher than the rates seen with the pill or with permanent forms of contraception. Maybe this is the engineer in me taking over, but statistically speaking, the NFP-practitioner is just as “open to life” as the condom user.

I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on this. I expect two posts immediately: “Your sources must be wrong” and “Condoms aren’t natural, cycles are.” So to save everyone’s time:

My sources are Catholic-friendly websites for NFP data and non-Catholic-friendly websites for condom data. To my surprise, the condom-friendly sites reported a higher condom failure rate than NFP failure rate. In other words, I chose the most “favorable” sources for both sets of data in an attempt to offset any bias from either side.

I never bought the argument that condoms aren’t “natural” but NFP is “natural”. People use plenty of things from our environment for good purposes - the fact that it’s not a part of our bodies doesn’t prove or disprove that it’s part of God’s plan for us. And we needed significant advances in completely manmade materials and science to develop such accurate NFP methods.

Go to town! The Church always wins, but I still like to know why.

Haha, good question. I would like to know why too. Always wondered, always sought answers… never got any logical conclusions. Welcome to the club.

 

[Rence]

The unitive property thing is what I was missing, thank you. But my point was that condoms don’t eliminate the procreative property any more than NFP does. From a scientific point of view, most statistics would say that perfect condom use is more open to procreation than perfect NFP practice…

Even if that were true (which I’m not contesting, I just don’t have that information readily available), it still eliminates the unitive property.

 

[Fogwalker]

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

So regulating births is responsible and moral…but any action that hinders procreation is immoral…???

 

[sw85]

So regulating births is responsible and moral…but any action that hinders procreation is immoral…???

Yes. Contraception and so on subverts the procreative nature of the sexual act.

NFP does not: it is still intriscally ordered toward procreation. indeed, it is still possible to get pregnant while practicing NFP, though unlikely if done correctly.

 

[Bookcat]

So regulating births is responsible and moral…but any action that hinders procreation is immoral…???

Correct…read the full context of the Compendium quotes.

NFP is not hindering anything…where as contraception is.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes. Contraception and so on subverts the procreative nature of the sexual act.

NFP does not: it is still intriscally ordered toward procreation. indeed, it is still possible to get pregnant while practicing NFP, though unlikely if done correctly.

and not only that but NFP is simply NOT hindering the nature of the marital act …which is to be both unitative and procreative (that is open to life…not hindering it…)

 

[Bookcat]

Mons. Cormac Burke’s article can be helpful.

he was a Judge on the Rota court in Rome which looked at marriages concerning validity (the high court of the Church)

cormacburke.or.ke/node/282

 

[Jennifer_J]

So regulating births is responsible and moral…but any action that hinders procreation is immoral…???

There are licit and illicit ways to regulate births for just/serious/grave reasons. Total abstinence and periodic abstinence are licit ways. Contraception is illicit. It has nothing to do with how “effective” the method is, it has to do with keeping the act whole: both ordered toward procreation and unity. Contraception interferes with either one or both.

 

[Fogwalker]

So NFP isn’t sinful during the ACT of having sex (or abstaining)…but could a couple’s SYSTEMIC use of NFP be sinful if the couple used NFP to prevent conception for selfish reasons?

 

[sw85]

So NFP isn’t sinful during the ACT of having sex (or abstaining)…but could a couple’s SYSTEMIC use of NFP be sinful if the couple used NFP to prevent conception for selfish reasons?

I can’t imagine what such a circumstance would look like, but I suppose it’s possible.

To me it seems like the Catholic position on sex is fairly straightforward. Just ask yourself a few questions:

1. Are you married? (The answer had better be yes!)
2. Will you be using contraception? (The answer had better be no!)
3. Will the sexual act be ordered toward procreation? (The answer had better be yes!)
4. Would even the prospect of pregnancy constitute a total disaster for you? (If not, have fun!)

 

[Fogwalker]

I can’t imagine what such a circumstance would look like, but I suppose it’s possible.

To me it seems like the Catholic position on sex is fairly straightforward. Just ask yourself a few questions:

1. Are you married? (The answer had better be yes!)
2. Will you be using contraception? (The answer had better be no!)
3. Will the sexual act be ordered toward procreation? (The answer had better be yes!)
4. Would even the prospect of pregnancy constitute a total disaster for you? (If not, have fun!)

A husband and wife are called to lovingly accept children as a gift from God. The situation I am asking about is when a husband and wife deliberately close themselves off to the potential for that gift, using NFP, without a solid reason for doing so. I am contending that NFP in that circumstance is a deliberate avoidance of God’s gifts and a rejection of what His plan might have in store for the couple, and would therefore be seriously sinful.

Sex is a critical part of the Sacrament of Marriage. To use an analogy from another sacramental experience, using NFP without a serious reason for doing so is like a Catholic in good standing who understands the Eucharist, goes to Mass, and deliberately chooses not to take Communion, spiritually or physically, without a good reason. They aren’t breaking any “rules” per se, but they are purposely avoiding grace when it is so easily in their reach. If that’s not a sin of omission, I don’t know what is.

 

[Bookcat]

So NFP isn’t sinful during the ACT of having sex (or abstaining)…but could a couple’s SYSTEMIC use of NFP be sinful if the couple used NFP to prevent conception for selfish reasons?

NFP can be sinful from motive or lack of serious reasons…

 

[Good_Daughter]

Go to town! The Church always wins, but I still like to know why.

I think it has to do with physical form.

NFP, working properly, allows a couple’s marital embrace to be physically ‘open to life’. In times of infertility, a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy still engage in the very act that makes a baby. A condom (like all contraception) physically alters an act of intercourse. It only allows a couple’s marital embrace to be physically ‘open to life’ when it malfunctions.

We see this attention to physical form elsewhere in Catholicism, especially the sacraments. The Eucharist, for example, is in the form of bread and wine, not crackers and juice as used in some other Christian celebrations.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

NFP, working properly, allows a couple’s marital embrace to be physically ‘open to life’. In times of infertility, a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy still engage in the very act that makes a baby.

Well, here’s an analogy for you. Suppose I am a cab driver who gets paid by the hour, not by the number of rides I give. I am lazy and want to get paid without actually giving anyone a ride. So here is what I do. On the nights when the opera is playing, I wait around the ballpark. And on nights when there is a baseball game, I sit outside the opera house. Neat, eh? Needless to say, my cab is rarely hailed and I get to sit a lot. Now my boss complains that I am not doing my job. My response to him is that I am physically open to giving people cab rides. I am doing the very thing that, at other times, would result in getting customers. But I am using my knowledge of timing (like NFP) to avoid that consequence.

Now there is another cab driver (call him “Bill”) who also is lazy like me, but he avoids work a different way. He waits in his cab at the proper venue, but he hangs a dead fish in the window to discourage customers with the smell (like contraception). Needless to say, our boss is not very happy with him either.

So is there a substantial difference between my technique of avoiding work and the one Bill uses?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Well, here’s an analogy for you. Suppose I am a cab driver who gets paid by the hour, not by the number of rides I give. I am lazy and want to get paid without actually giving anyone a ride. So here is what I do. On the nights when the opera is playing, I wait around the ballpark. And on nights when there is a baseball game, I sit outside the opera house. Neat, eh? Needless to say, my cab is rarely hailed and I get to sit a lot. Now my boss complains that I am not doing my job. My response to him is that I am physically open to giving people cab rides. I am doing the very thing that, at other times, would result in getting customers. But I am using my knowledge of timing (like NFP) to avoid that consequence.

Now there is another cab driver (call him “Bill”) who also is lazy like me, but he avoids work a different way. He waits in his cab at the proper venue, but he hangs a dead fish in the window to discourage customers with the smell (like contraception). Needless to say, our boss is not very happy with him either.

So is there a substantial difference between my technique of avoiding work and the one Bill uses?

One is calculating while the other is offensive, but neither technique is being used in a moral way.

I don’t mind an imperfect analogy, but I think this one misses the point. For an employee being paid an hourly rate, work is an obligation, not a consequence. Married couples are not necessarily obligated to try to conceive children. Many who use NFP (or contraception, for that matter) have valid reasons to avoid pregnancy. Both drivers in your analogy are effectively cheating their boss. They can only be compared to couples who are avoiding children without serious reason, in which case either technique could be sinful.