Sadness over NFP misuse/misunderstanding

[momor]

As Em posted before:

It’s not MY definition. It’s the Church’s…

It doesn’t change the fact that there is still a disconnect between the theological meaning of the procreative aspect of sex (the reproductive part) and the ‘ordered to procreation’ meaning which in NFP includes infertile sex and seeking to keep the egg and sperm apart. The definition disconnect matters!

I am running out of ideas for expressing myself. If anyone else knows what I am saying but has a better way to say it please jump in.

 

[Jennifer_J]

It doesn’t change the fact that there is still a disconnect between the theological meaning of the procreative aspect of sex (the reproductive part) and the ‘ordered to procreation’ meaning which in NFP includes infertile sex and seeking to keep the egg and sperm apart. The definition disconnect matters!

I am running out of ideas for expressing myself. If anyone else knows what I am saying but has a better way to say it please jump in.

Me, too.

All I can say is that there is no disconnect. The procreative aspect of sex IS the reproductive part, but reproduction doesn’t have to occur for the act to be procreative in nature. If this were the case that procreative must be FERTILE, then that means 2 things: we can only have sex when conception can occur (and infact it would be sinful to NOT have sex then) and infertile couples can’t get married.

I’m sure I’ll never change your mind and you’ll not be changing mine. As you can see by my signature, it’s not like dh and I aren’t open to procreation most of the time…however, we use NFP to space pregnancies (or not, we have a few close spacings!) and for accurate due dates/health issues.

 

[momor]

I have been wracking my brain to try and come up with an analogy. This one is very poor but here goes.

To say that one’s sexual relationship is ordered to procreation while only having sex during infertile periods is like saying you are open to walking in the rain but you always check the weather and never go outside when it’s raining.

I know, dumb analogy, but I’m tired.

 

[Rach620]

I have been wracking my brain to try and come up with an analogy. This one is very poor but here goes.

To say that one’s sexual relationship is ordered to procreation while only having sex during infertile periods is like saying you are open to walking in the rain but you always check the weather and never go outside when it’s raining.

I know, dumb analogy, but I’m tired.

I’m very hesitant to weighing in on this monster of a thread, but wanted to directly address this.

The morality of NFP and the immorality of ABC are not determined by the ordering of one’s overall “sexual relationship”. This idea is nowhere in Church teaching on this issue. The Church only speaks to the morality of acts, not to the morality of an “overall relationship” (which is fluid, hardly objective, and difficult to determine) nor the morality of a non-act (i.e. not having sex for whatever reason).

There has been a lot of talking-past on this thread with regard to the “procreative meaning” of sex and “the sexual relationship” and it seems to be because people are talking about different things.

Whenever an NFP-using couple has sex, that sexual act is, by its very nature, ordered towards procreation–whether or not the woman is naturally fertile. The husband and wife have not done anything to alter their natural fertility. They have done nothing to render themselves or the act infertile. The timing of sex has no effect over the natural fertility or infertility of a woman’s body; it is a decision made by the couple after observation.

Where I think people on this thread agree that there is a potential for sin are in the reasons married couples discern for avoiding pregnancy, and whether they are acting with just/serious/grave reasons and in accord with properly formed consciences. We need to be clear that according to Catholic teaching, a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy is **never **frustrating the procreative meaning of sex.

 

[momor]

Whenever an NFP-using couple has sex, that sexual act is, by its very nature, ordered towards procreation–whether or not the woman is naturally fertile. The husband and wife have not done anything to alter their natural fertility. **They have done nothing to render themselves or the act infertile. **The timing of sex has no effect over the natural fertility or infertility of a woman’s body; it is a decision made by the couple after observation.

I disagree with the statement I bolded. While they have done nothing to alter their individual fertility they have in fact through conscious timing rendered all their sexual acts infertile and they are not ordered to procreation in any real sense of the term. Calling the sex act ‘ordered to procreation’ is a disingenuous description of what is actually taking place.

 

[momor]

Whenever an NFP-using couple has sex, that sexual act is, by its very nature, ordered towards procreation–whether or not the woman is naturally fertile.

I find this statement to be an assertion of truth without any proof. Can you explain why you think it is true?

 

[Rach620]

I disagree with the statement I bolded. While they have done nothing to alter their individual fertility they have in fact through conscious timing rendered all their sexual acts infertile and they are not ordered to procreation in any real sense of the term. Calling the sex act ‘ordered to procreation’ is a disingenuous description of what is actually taking place.

The timing of intercourse does not render acts infertile. The timing of intercourse is not the cause of the fertility or infertility of the man’s or woman’s body; it is a decision made based upon observation. Whatever the couples intention in the use of NFP, as long as they are not contracepting there is nothing intrinsically disordered about the sex they are or are not having.

Spouses are under no obligation to ensure that any or all of their sexual acts result in procreation. They are instead morally obligated to ensure that all of their sexual acts are ordered to procreation in accord with the natural law. I’m assuming this point does not need elaborating, but I can spell it out more explicitly if necessary.

I’m not sure what you mean by “any real sense of the term” when you talk about whether sex is ordered to procreation. It either is or it isn’t; it’s not that it REALLY is in some cases and it REALLY isn’t in others. Sex during the infertile period is objectively the same as sex for couples who are always infertile–as long as they are having intercourse in the appropriate way, the act itself is objectively ordered to procreation. That is the teaching of the Church. If you have some document or teaching you can point to about the “real sense of the term,” that might be helpful…

For now, I’ll post what is found in the CCC, and the section from Humanae Vitae it is citing:

So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” - CCC 2366

Note that “per se” there–it must remain ordered “by itself” to the procreation of human life. The overall “sexual relationship” or pattern of sex acts is NOT taken into account.

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

Additionally, Paul VI directly addresses your points in this paragraph of HV:

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

I don’t really think you’re arguing with me…you’re arguing with Pope Paul VI.

I find this statement to be an assertion of truth without any proof. Can you explain why you think it is true?

I explained why I think that is true in the other portions of my post. Again: The husband and wife have not done anything to alter their natural fertility. They have done nothing to render themselves or the act infertile. The timing of sex has no effect over the natural fertility or infertility of a woman’s body; it is a decision made by the couple after observation.

 

[Dymphna78]

I have been wracking my brain to try and come up with an analogy. This one is very poor but here goes.

To say that one’s sexual relationship is ordered to procreation while only having sex during infertile periods is like saying you are open to walking in the rain but you always check the weather and never go outside when it’s raining.

I know, dumb analogy, but I’m tired.

I don’t think NFP to avoid is a sin, but I do understand your confusion and frustration with the logic behind it. I accept NFP as good, and a fine option to space births, achieve births, retain sanity, etc, but I have some of the same questions as you.

The best analogy I’ve heard for expressing my particular confusion was this:

Let’s say the marital act during a fertile time is Eucharistic Adoration. It is not a sin to miss Adoration, and you’re certainly not required to attend every time your parish holds it even if you’re aware of it. And of course you can visit the church other times as well with no sin involved. You are fully open to attending Adoration, which you know (because you’ve done your research, and are aware of what’s going on in your parish) is held on Tuesdays and Thursdays. But you show up at the church on Mondays and Wednesdays and never on Tuesdays and Thursdays. After all, if God would like you to attend Adoration, He can always surprise you with it on an unscheduled date.

The logic seems a bit twisty to me, but I chalk it up to being one of those things I’m not smart enough to grasp. No matter how many times it’s explained to me, no matter how much I try to understand, there is still this puzzlement.

 

[HouseArrest]

My claim is based on statistical rates of failure (unintended pregnancy). Besides, NFP couples theoretically don’t have sex on fertile days. Condom couples theoretically have sex throughout the cycle. Condoms theoretically break/leak throughout the cycle, meaning egg and sperm on average are more likely to unite in condom users.

Then the condom using couple would have to intentionally have relations on the fertile days to ensure they are being more open to life (or however you want to say it) than the NFP couple. If they do that then they are “using” NFP also.

 

[Em_in_FL]

As you stated it is my reason and logic. I am critiqueing the NFP philosophy and practice and trying to show where I think it falls apart. I’m not comparing theological views.

I don’t doubt than many of you think it is tilting at windmills and I should just accept the teaching and forget it. But it is something that has bothered me for years and I know I am not the only one. There are many Catholics who continue to use ABC because they believe that morally NFP is fundamentally no different. That what I have been trying to show but we keep getting hung up on the terminology that you ( meaning NFP users) accept and I think is disingenuous.

I have no doubt that many local parishes (mine included) have been lacking in fully explaining this teaching… thus many people carry on this incorrect understanding. That doesn’t mean the teaching itself is flawed, but simply that you (and others) don’t fully understand it. Not putting blame for that lack of understanding on your or others or the priests or bishops… but it’s probably a full combination…

Let’s get back to the Catechism, though…

2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

**Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.**160

If you need to discuss this with your priest then that may be the next route for you. The church clearly states that not *only *is there a DIFFERENCE, but it’s both anthropological and moral…

 

[AngelRS]

I have to say that it’s true that many couples don’t understand NFP and do, indeed use it “selfishly” - eg not feeling ready for a child in a certain moment without a more serious motive. We are not to judge the reasons for using NFP but I’ve learnt that it’s to be used to plan a family and the preventive aspect is allowed only in certain serious situations. At times our definition of serious needs to be revisited…

Still, I’m glad to have discovered NFP and contrary to what non-Catholics (and many Catholics!) think, it does work and can help unify a couple.

 

[PaulinVA]

I disagree with the statement I bolded. While they have done nothing to alter their individual fertility they have in fact through conscious timing rendered all their sexual acts infertile and they are not ordered to procreation in any real sense of the term. Calling the sex act ‘ordered to procreation’ is a disingenuous description of what is actually taking place.

So, let’s get this straight.
A couple doesn’t have relations, but don’t know that the woman is at the fertile time in her cycle. NO sin.
A couple doesn’t have relations, and knows the woman is at the fertile time in her cycle. SIN.

I don’t follow your thinking.

A couple has relations, but doesn’t know the woman is at the infertile time in her cycle. NO sin.
A couple has relations, and knows the woman is at the infertile time in her cycle. SIN.

I understand you are trying to get to intent, I don’t follow the thinking in your posts. The logical conclusion to draw from your line of thinking is that the couple using NFP to avoid for serious/just/grave reasons is sinning when they have relations and sinning when they don’t have relations.

You know that can’t be right.

 

[momor]

So, let’s get this straight.
A couple doesn’t have relations, but don’t know that the woman is at the fertile time in her cycle. NO sin.
A couple doesn’t have relations, and knows the woman is at the fertile time in her cycle. SIN.

I don’t follow your thinking.

A couple has relations, but doesn’t know the woman is at the infertile time in her cycle. NO sin.
A couple has relations, and knows the woman is at the infertile time in her cycle. SIN.

I understand you are trying to get to intent, I don’t follow the thinking in your posts. The logical conclusion to draw from your line of thinking is that the couple using NFP to avoid for serious/just/grave reasons is sinning when they have relations and sinning when they don’t have relations.

You know that can’t be right.

No. You are jumping to conclusions I have not made or even implied. I have purposely avoided making any moral statements about whether couples SHOULD be having sex on certain days or not. I am only picking at the contradictions that I see in the philosophy and practice of NFP without going beyond that into what couples should be doing.

 

[NoAvailableName]

I have been wracking my brain to try and come up with an analogy. This one is very poor but here goes.

To say that one’s sexual relationship is ordered to procreation while only having sex during infertile periods is like saying you are open to walking in the rain but you always check the weather and never go outside when it’s raining.

I know, dumb analogy, but I’m tired.

Ordered for fitness:
Your are expected to work out at the gym in order to be healthy. However, sometimes the gym is closed.

By only going to the gym at times when you think the gym is closed, you can avoid having to work out very often, if at all. There is nothing to prevent you from working out in the gym, if it happens to be open, so your acts are “ordered for fitness”. You look down on those who never go to the gym, or refuse to go in if it is open.

Order for healthy eating:
You are expected to eat healthy food. However, sometimes there just isn’t any healthy food available.

When grocery shopping, you only buy junk food so you can avoid ever having to eat healthy. When looking for something to eat at home, you can only find junk food, but since you would have eaten the healthy food if it was available, your acts are “ordered for healthy eating”. You look down on those who choose to eat the unhealthy food in their house when healthy food is available.

Ordered for wetness:
You are expected to walk in the rain. However, sometimes it isn’t raining.

By only going outside when there is no rain nearby, you can likely avoid having to walk in the rain. There is nothing to prevent you from getting wet if it were actually raining outside, so your acts are “ordered for wetness”. You look down on those who use artificial barrier methods, like umbrellas, when going outside in the rain.

Ordered for procreation:
Married couples are supposed to produce children. However, sometimes couples are infertile.

By only having sex when you are most likely infertile, you have a great chance of avoiding children. There is nothing to prevent you from having children, if you happened to be fertile, so your acts are “ordered for procreation”. You look down on those who use condoms, pills, etc.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Order for healthy eating:
You are expected to eat healthy food. However, sometimes there just isn’t any healthy food available.

NoAvailableName (and mormor), I believe your difficulty (as outlined in your quote above) is caused by misunderstand philosophical/theological terminology (which St. Thomas Aquinas has entrenched in the theological language of the Church.)

It’s not “ordered for”, it’s “ordered to” and that phrase does not connote obligation, but final end or purpose (in God’s design) of a thing or action (its telos.)
(For example, the telos of your lungs is to keep you alive through breathing.)

When the Church says sexual relations are “ordered to procreation” that means that we acknowledge that the purpose, final aim and the “what makes it what it is” of married love is the possibility of creating new life. (And only the possibility, because even with a perfectly healthy set of bodies, whether or not a new, unique human being comes into existence is ultimately in God’s hands. He is the Creator, not us, even though our bodies provide the physical matter for creation.)

But a “part” so to speak of this telos of married love its “unitive aspect.” That is to say you cannot have relations that are “ordered to procreation” that are not also unitive. The “bonding” aspect of sexual relations cannot be separated from the possibility of procreation. (See* Humanae Vitae*)

Now this procreative telos of married love is not diminished because the act is not always fertile. (It just can’t be, because God made women so that they are not (like men) constantly fertile.) Thus “ordered to procreation” includes acts that fall in the naturally infertile times – even when those times are caused by disease. Respecting the *telos *of married love means respecting the God-given bodily design and bodily integrity of men and women.

Artificial contraception attempts to deny or warp the telos of married love-- it is an attempt to artificially separate the unitive aspect of married love from the procreative aspect by forcing the act to be sterile (regardless of whether or not this attempt is successful.) It does not respect the bodily integrity of men and women, but interferes with it.

Thus NFP is permissible for serious reasons-- because it respects and does not remove the procreative nature of the act and respects God’s design for our bodies.

This, of course, leaves aside the question of intent, but I tend to think we are mostly all on the same page here.

Unless, of course you, or mormor would argue that there is never any good reason to space or avoid pregnancy. Which, of course, is not Church teaching…

 

[momor]

Let’s get back to the Catechism, though…

Quote:
2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. **In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:**159

I like the first sentence. Clear and straightforward, no confusion as to what it means. I think it should have ended right there.

Now look at the statement I bolded. I can make a very good case for why NFP would fit this description of an evil act. It appears that the ends and means of NFP are the same as what is being condemned. So now comes the confusion about why NFP is OK but ABC isn’t. But instead of being clear about why…

The rest of the statement is a lot of squishy vague prose that has no clear meaning. IMO it serves to confuse more than clarify.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I like the first sentence. Clear and straightforward, no confusion as to what it means. I think it should have ended right there.

Ah. But the sentence doesn’t end there, and it’s a false reading that doesn’t read in context.

That sentence is contrasting (see the previous) sentence “periodic continence” (read: periodic abstinence or NFP) with any act that attempts (that is, “any act which proposes” read: attempts (they are synonyms in English! so this is not “twisted” language, this is formal theological language) to render procreation impossible. (And you’ll note, it doesn’t matter whether that attempt is successful, it matters what the act aims to do.)

NFP just doesn’t (as the Catechism rightly notes) render procreation impossible or even try to. It doesn’t interfere with the normal functioning of the human body outside the act (as the Pill does) or with the act itself (as barrier methods do.)

There is simply no way you could “make that case.”

The rest of the statement is a lot of squishy vague prose that has no clear meaning. IMO it serves to confuse more than clarify.

I hope you’ll forgive me for chuckling a little bit… sure this prose is a bit cramped, but not because it’s vague. It’s because it’s written in very, very tightly defined (over a period of centuries) philosophical/theological terms…

 

[whm]

I like the first sentence. Clear and straightforward, no confusion as to what it means. I think it should have ended right there.

Now look at the statement I bolded. I can make a very good case for why NFP would fit this description of an evil act. It appears that the ends and means of NFP are the same as what is being condemned. So now comes the confusion about why NFP is OK but ABC isn’t. But instead of being clear about why…

The rest of the statement is a lot of squishy vague prose that has no clear meaning. IMO it serves to confuse more than clarify.

I once heard somebody say “a camel is a horse created by committee”.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I like the first sentence. Clear and straightforward, no confusion as to what it means. I think it should have ended right there.

Now look at the statement I bolded. I can make a very good case for why NFP would fit this description of an evil act. It appears that the ends and means of NFP are the same as what is being condemned. So now comes the confusion about why NFP is OK but ABC isn’t. But instead of being clear about why…

The rest of the statement is a lot of squishy vague prose that has no clear meaning. IMO it serves to confuse more than clarify.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/render

–verb (used with object)

1. to cause to be or become; make: to render someone helpless

ABC does render the act infertile. NFP does not. The women is already infertile.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I once heard somebody say “a camel is a horse created by committee”.

I think “committee” is the wrong term to use when you’re talking about a line of theological thinking that extends through centuries…