Sadness over NFP misuse/misunderstanding

[Em_in_FL]

With most if not all sins, intent has a lot to do with it.

The knowledge NFP provides can be used with a sinful intent. If a person intends for it to be contraceptive then it is their intent that matters. On the other hand somebody who uses it and after spiritual due diligence, meets the criteria established by the Church, doesn’t run afoul of fulfilling the “marriage debt”, etc, and is open to life with each act their intent is different than the first. The second person may be surprised by a pregnancy but after the surprise wears off, they should not be disappointed or claim that NFP didn’t work for them. Its one thing to complain about not being able to read your signs it is another to complain because you (or your spouse) became pregnant while using NFP.

Absolutely! And that’s the point of all this… The Church’s teaching INCLUDES “intent clauses”…

Follow the teaching… TEACH the teaching… *understand *the teaching… and we should all agree!

 

[former_Catholic]

To imply it is part of God’s original design that couples should know when a woman is fertile or not is really disingenuous IMO…
…But I think it is important to be internally honest about what NFP is. Let’s stop pretending it isn’t what it is - Church approved contraception.

I’ve got a better idea. Let’s stop pretending that women and men have sufficiently consistent, model, and unchanging physical signs, bodies, health, emotions, spirits, and habits over time such that NFP actually works as any sort of contraception model whatsoever. It doesn’t.

The difference is that NFP still allows for intercourse while still almost completely avoiding pregnancy, and thus provides a certain temptation for misuse that abstinence doesn’t really have.

“Almost completely avoiding pregnancy” ? HA!
HA HA HA HA HA Who on earth told you that one? “Almost avoiding pregnancy” equals pregnant… pregnant… pregnant.

And while we’re at it, let’s also stop pretending that doing things “as one’s parents did and as people have done for centuries”… the typical house full of kids where one parent is perpetually “in control,” while the other parent is perpetually “out of control” due to alcoholism constitutes any sort of functional, healthy, and responsible model of marriage and family to be emulated. It isn’t. It tends to produce children who will struggle with significant overcontrol vs. out-of-control issues for the rest of their lives because they have been raised without a functional model of how to create and maintain genuinely functional and loving partnership.

Perhaps the idea of a couple attempting to negotiate birthing and raising children in concert and partnership with one another really does look like some sort of bizarre and unGodly “science experiment”…
when in one’s own family there is sadly no such thing as a functional partnership between one’s “in control” parent and one’s “out of control” alcoholic parent at all.
It makes a whole lot of sense that it would.
I’m terribly terribly sorry.

 

[momor]

No, having intercourse when the woman is infertile doesn’t interfere with the design of sex!!

IMO it does when the decision is made to forego sex during all fertile periods. It is splitting up the normal cycle into OK times and NOT OK times for sex. It involves denying urges to make love and give of oneself totally when those feelings naturally arise during fertile times but not denying the urges during infertile times. This makes sex begin to seem utilitarian and goal oriented rather than spontaneous self-giving.

The Church has no rules on WHEN to have sex, as long as intercourse is PROCREATIVE (that doesn’t mean that it has to be FERTILE, there is a difference). Procreative sex is sex that, from start to finish, could generate life.

It can be argued that sex using ABC is also open to life as long as a couple is committed to accepting any pregnancy that might result from a failure of the ABC. Some methods of ABC, such as condoms, are more failure prone than rigorously following NFP according to NFP method statistics. So with all due respect I think it is disingenuous to say sex is procreative when a couple is going to great lengths to make it not so, although I accept that you don’t see it this way and I’m not calling you disingenuous.

This is independent of whether a couple is fertile or not. This is one reason that infertile couples are allowed to marry. If infertility was the basis for licitness, than inferilte couples couldn’t marry, there would be rules stating that sex must only occur during fertile times, that pregnant couples couldn’t have sex and so forth. These are not accurate teachings of the Church. A pregnant couple can still have procreative sex, even though procreation can’t happen again. Naturally infertile couples have procreative sex even though procreation is unlikely. Couples in menopause are fully entitled to continue having sex–as long as it’s procreative. Procreative doesn’t equal fertile. There is no slippery slope. It is very clear.

Once again I do not dispute that the Church allows these things. But you are equating unintentional infertility with a couple purposely attempting to render their sex as infertile as possible. I don’t see them as being equal or even similar. The Church would frown on a man or woman intentionally marrying someone who is infertile **because **they wanted to have sex without children. That would amount to a utilitarian attitude toward their spouse’s infertility rather than one of acceptance which is the Church view.

It remains true that NFP should only be used for grave/serious/just reasons. On this I wholeheartedly agree (as has everyone on this thread!).

 

[Jennifer_J]

momor:
But there is no RENDERING of the sex act as infertile in a normal cycle. A couple is simply infertile at various times, it’s a normal part of all women’s cycles. All forms of contraception have as their goal to RENDER the act nonprocreative. The act itself is altered every time. Abstinence doesn’t render the act nonprocreative because there is no act. The knowledge of being fertile or infertile doesn’t change the act–if it’s done in a procreative way, then it is ordered to procreation. Effectiveness rates have nothing to do with the licitness of the act.

 

[Consecrated]

I’m feeling the unholy desire to thump you on the head with a Catechism.

if only that worked…

 

[Em_in_FL]

IMO it does when the decision is made to forego sex during all fertile periods. It is splitting up the normal cycle into OK times and NOT OK times for sex. It involves denying urges to make love and give of oneself totally when those feelings naturally arise during fertile times but not denying the urges during infertile times. This makes sex begin to seem utilitarian and goal oriented rather than spontaneous self-giving.

If these are your thoughts from your personal situation, then I would venture to guess you don’t have a just/serious/grave reason for using NFP…

Those “urges” and “feelings” to give yourself to your spouse totally are automatically readjusted when that REASON is *truly *just/serious/grave. Sure, the sexual temptation may be slightly there, but the true “giving oneself” to your spouse feeling isn’t because you are instead “giving yourself” to your spouse through abstinence instead - because that reason really IS so just/grave/serious…
Does that make sense?

So yeah - your thoughts on it being utilitarian WOULD BE for a couple who doesn’t truly have that REASON.
But for a couple who really has that REASON - those thoughts of “giving oneself” are through self-restraint and mutual prayer.

And THIS is what I’m talking about when I mentioned “EXPERIENCE” earlier in this thread… unless you EXPERIENCE the need, you simply wouldn’t understand how it changes this mutual self-giving expression…
ALSO - this is what I mean by the chances of NFP actually being abused is such a SMALL percentage. If that reason isn’t compelling, what’s driving you to abstain?

 

[Consecrated]

IMO it does when the decision is made to forego sex during all fertile periods. It is splitting up the normal cycle into OK times and NOT OK times for sex. It involves denying urges to make love and give of oneself totally when those feelings naturally arise during fertile times but not denying the urges during infertile times. This makes sex begin to seem utilitarian and goal oriented rather than spontaneous self-giving.

Well, we currently do not need to practice any form of NFP, but let me tell you, if marital union is only allowed when it’s spontaneous, DH and I are out of luck… with 5 children (if only #5 would just. come. out.) and a low libido for myself, intimacy takes some planning.

But it’s still self-giving.

“Lack of spontaneity” is not a good argument against periodic continence.

 

[momor]

But there is no RENDERING of the sex act as infertile in a normal cycle. A couple is simply infertile at various times, it’s a normal part of all women’s cycles.

This is the convoluted thinking that I mentioned earlier. Here is my counter - statement:
The sex act is rendered infertile in practice and in intent (although the inate fertility of the sperm or egg is unaffected) when limited to infertile times during the monthly cycle.

Again I say it is disingenuous to claim the act is not infertile when that is clearly the intent of the timing.

All forms of contraception have as their goal to RENDER the act nonprocreative.

My counter-statement:
All sex acts timed to coincide with the woman’s infertile period have as their goal to RENDER the act non-procreative.

Abstinence doesn’t render the act nonprocreative because there is no act.

I agree.

The knowledge of being fertile or infertile doesn’t change the act–if it’s done in a procreative way, then it is ordered to procreation.

I disagree with your definition of procreative as being unrelated to fertility. It makes no sense from a literal or biological definition. It’s not pro-creation like pro-life.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary online
Procreate
transitive verb
: to beget or bring forth (offspring) : propagate
intransitive verb
: to beget or bring forth offspring : reproduce

The NFP usage of the word procreative, implying openess to life, is a definition designed to distract from what NFP is really doing - rendering the timing of the sex act to be non-procreative (an infertile act - sex timed so as to avoid reproduction).

Effectiveness rates have nothing to do with the licitness of the act.

**I agree. Licitness is determined by the Church. But you are trying to misdirect the point I was making about openess to life./**QUOTE]

I’m not trying to duck further debate but I have to go somewhere.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I disagree with your definition of procreative as being unrelated to fertility. It makes no sense from a literal or biological definition. It’s not pro-creation like pro-life.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary online
Procreate
transitive verb
: to beget or bring forth (offspring) : propagate
intransitive verb
: to beget or bring forth offspring : reproduce

So we’re back to the circular argument… under YOUR definition that “every act must procreate” then EVERY act would HAVE to be during the FERTILE time, right?
And then what about the infertile couples?

Also, we need to look at the words more closely.
The church doesn’t teach that each individual act mustPROCREATE (meaning - beget life or bring forth offspring)…
It teaches that it must be PROCREATIVE (meaning - Capable of reproducing; generative)… that it is done in a manner that COULD bring about life.

Again… understanding the teaching is important.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Jennifer J;6844224:

But there is no RENDERING of the sex act as infertile in a normal cycle. A couple is simply infertile at various times, it’s a normal part of all women’s cycles.

This is the convoluted thinking that I mentioned earlier. Here is my counter - statement:
The sex act

is rendered infertile in practice and in intent (although the inate fertility of the sperm or egg is unaffected) when limited to infertile times during the monthly cycle.

Again I say it is disingenuous to claim the act is not infertile when that is clearly the intent of the timing.

All forms of contraception have as their goal to RENDER the act nonprocreative.

My counter-statement:
All sex acts timed to coincide with the woman’s infertile period have as their goal to RENDER the act non-procreative.

Abstinence doesn’t render the act nonprocreative because there is no act.

I agree.

The knowledge of being fertile or infertile doesn’t change the act–if it’s done in a procreative way, then it is ordered to procreation.

I disagree with your definition of procreative as being unrelated to fertility. It makes no sense from a literal or biological definition. It’s not pro-creation like pro-life.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary online
Procreate
transitive verb
: to beget or bring forth (offspring) : propagate
intransitive verb
: to beget or bring forth offspring : reproduce

The NFP usage of the word procreative, implying openess to life, is a definition designed to distract from what NFP is really doing - rendering the timing of the sex act to be non-procreative (an infertile act - sex timed so as to avoid reproduction).

Effectiveness rates have nothing to do with the licitness of the act.

**I agree. Licitness is determined by the Church. But you are trying to misdirect the point I was making about openess to life./**QUOTE]

I’m not trying to duck further debate but I have to go somewhere.

It’s not convoluted, nor is it redefining procreative because I don’t rely soley on the Webster’s dictionary, but rely on what the Church has said on the topic. Sex that is performed without interference is by definition procreative–but it doesn’t have to be fertile. It’s an attempt to describe that the act COULD produce life all things being equal (various factors affect fertility, not just the presence of egg and sperm). This is why infertile people can get married licitly. I know I’m repeating myself. Openness to life is not the best description for what is happening. The sex act must be ordered to life or ordered to procreation. 2 ways of saying the same thing. Open to life is to flimsy and confusing. It leads to the jump that you made–that condoms (a barrier) are more open to life. No way.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Interesting point:

Go to the Humanae Vitae Encyclical…
Search for the word “procreate”… it’s no where to be found.
Search for the word “procreation”… it’s used in context discerning the “question of procreation” and that the marital act should be “ordered toward procreation”.
Search for the word “procreative”… it’s used in context saying that the marital act is twofold and must be BOTH procreative and unitive…

You really need to understand the USES of the word within the Encyclical…

 

[PaulinVA]

Marital relations are supposed to be ordered towards procreation.

That means there is nothing in the way of the sperm and the egg meeting if they are there.

If there there is low sperm count, it’s still ordered towards procreation.

If there is no egg to be fertilized at the time, it’s still ordered towards procreation.

NFP is ordered towards procreation. There is nothing in the way of the sperm and the egg meeting* if they are there*.

I think everyone agrees that NFP should be used to space births or avoid further births only for grave/just/serious reasons.

 

[NoAvailableName]

It teaches that it must be PROCREATIVE (meaning - Capable of reproducing; generative)… that it is done in a manner that COULD bring about life.

It’s an attempt to describe that the act COULD produce life all things being equal

Sex with condoms COULD bring about life.

That means there is nothing in the way of the sperm and the egg meeting if they are there

Ditto for the birth control pill.

I’m not trying to argue for/against pills/condoms. But I’ve never seen anything convincing that NFP is that fundamentally different from other means of contraception. The methods vary, but the intent is the same (to enjoy sex while minimizing the likelihood of children). One is sanctified, the others accursed.

 

[momor]

I would also be repeating myself to answer the previous posts point by point.

A couple can engage in marital relations, undertaken after careful study of the wife’s monthly cycle to determine her infertile days with up to 99% accuracy per NFP methodology and call it “ordered toward procreation” if they like, but I find it hypocritical and an attempt to hide the true purpose behind misleading terminology. As I pointed out before, the condom using couple’s intercourse, while technically not ordered toward procreation because of the barrier, is statistically more likely to allow for the egg and sperm to meet up since they are not avoiding fertile days. So when comparing the two methods, the term “ordered toward procreation” for NFP describes a technical difference (non-barrier) without the moral superiority I think you would like it to have. Don’t get me wrong, I am not promoting ABC.

Bottom line for me:

NFP is a variety of natural and artificial contraceptive methods employing a philosophy that is wrapped in a layer of deceptive verbage to obfuscate it’s true nature.

IMO it is the Church’s answer to a contraceptive-minded and sexually obssessed culture while trying to appear not to condone the same. By that I mean a culture that demands to be in control of the number and spacing of children while having sex **just for pleasure **as often as possible. No matter how you package it, NFP when used contraceptively seeks as it’s end to separate the procreative from the unitive aspect of sex.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

No, having intercourse when the woman is infertile doesn’t interfere with the design of sex!! The Church has no rules on WHEN to have sex, as long as intercourse is PROCREATIVE (that doesn’t mean that it has to be FERTILE, there is a difference). Procreative sex is sex that, from start to finish, could generate life. This is independent of whether a couple is fertile or not. This is one reason that infertile couples are allowed to marry. If infertility was the basis for licitness, than inferilte couples couldn’t marry, there would be rules stating that sex must only occur during fertile times, that pregnant couples couldn’t have sex and so forth. These are not accurate teachings of the Church. A pregnant couple can still have procreative sex, even though procreation can’t happen again. Naturally infertile couples have procreative sex even though procreation is unlikely. Couples in menopause are fully entitled to continue having sex–as long as it’s procreative. Procreative doesn’t equal fertile. There is no slippery slope. It is very clear.

It remains true that NFP should only be used for grave/serious/just reasons. On this I wholeheartedly agree (as has everyone on this thread!).

The key word he used was “only”.

Contraception isn’t evil because it’s unnatural. It’s evil because it divorces procreation from pleasure. Periodic continence doesn’t do this, the procreative nature of each act is intact, fully present, not gotten rid of. NFP is knowledge about a woman’s cycle (which, btw, has been understood a lot longer than you think. Jewish law kept a man and woman apart until the woman was MOST fertile, amazing). Charting is no less interfering or difficult than going to the bathroom or brushing your teeth. Periodic continence is NOT contraception, it is ABSTAINING. Contraception is having relations anytime you want and rendering each act infertile.

NFP isn’t periodic continence. If it was, we’d call it “temporary abstinence”.
Sexual intercourse only during infertile times is what we are talking about.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Contraception isn’t evil because it’s unnatural. It’s evil because it divorces procreation from pleasure. Periodic continence doesn’t do this, the procreative nature of each act is intact, fully present, not gotten rid of. NFP is knowledge about a woman’s cycle (which, btw, has been understood a lot longer than you think. Jewish law kept a man and woman apart until the woman was MOST fertile, amazing). Charting is no less interfering or difficult than going to the bathroom or brushing your teeth. Periodic continence is NOT contraception, it is ABSTAINING. Contraception is having relations anytime you want and rendering each act infertile.

NFP isn’t periodic continence. If it was, we’d call it “temporary abstinence”.
Sexual intercourse only during infertile times is what we are talking about.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I would also be repeating myself to answer the previous posts point by point.

A couple can engage in marital relations, undertaken after careful study of the wife’s monthly cycle to determine her infertile days with up to 99% accuracy per NFP methodology and call it “ordered toward procreation” if they like, but I find it hypocritical and an attempt to hide the true purpose behind misleading terminology. As I pointed out before, the condom using couple’s intercourse, while technically not ordered toward procreation because of the barrier, is statistically more likely to allow for the egg and sperm to meet up since they are not avoiding fertile days. So when comparing the two methods, the term “ordered toward procreation” for NFP describes a technical difference (non-barrier) without the moral superiority I think you would like it to have. Don’t get me wrong, I am not promoting ABC.

Bottom line for me:

NFP is a variety of natural and artificial contraceptive methods employing a philosophy that is wrapped in a layer of deceptive verbage to obfuscate it’s true nature.

IMO it is the Church’s answer to a contraceptive-minded and sexually obssessed culture while trying to appear not to condone the same. By that I mean a culture that demands to be in control of the number and spacing of children while having sex **just for pleasure **as often as possible. No matter how you package it, NFP when used contraceptively seeks as it’s end to separate the procreative from the unitive aspect of sex.

A couple who uses NFP (to avoid) doesn’t actually have relations “as often as possible” They abstain from relations…they sacrifice having relations for the good of the family.

A couple on ABC has sex for pleasure as often as possible.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The key word he used was “only”.

NFP isn’t periodic continence. If it was, we’d call it “temporary abstinence”.
Sexual intercourse only during infertile times is what we are talking about.

OK, call it temporary abstinence. That’s how NFP works, by periodic continence.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The key word he used was “only”.

NFP isn’t periodic continence. If it was, we’d call it “temporary abstinence”.
Sexual intercourse only during infertile times is what we are talking about.

I"m sorry, but I don’t see the word only…what are you referring to?

NFP utilizes periodic continence or periodic abstinence–either way, describes the same thing.

 

[momor]

A couple who uses NFP (to avoid) doesn’t actually have relations “as often as possible” They abstain from relations…they sacrifice having relations for the good of the family.

A couple on ABC has sex for pleasure as often as possible.

You misunderstand my meaning. Charting a woman’s cycle allows the couple to have sex as often as possible, or as often as they would like, during her infertile period. If tracking and maximizing that window of opportunity was not part of the intent behind NFP they could confine intercourse to the menstrual cycle and be sure of not conceiving without any other effort involved.