Sadness over NFP misuse/misunderstanding

[Em_in_FL]

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

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…
.

You’re not reading it correctly.
*Abstaining *is not the same as taking intrinsically evil actions which render procreation impossible at any time surrounding the conjugal act …

Abstaining (in the form of NFP) means the act doesn’t even take place…
No “intrinsically evil act” is done to the conjugal act… it just never takes place at that time.
Unless you’re saying that abstaining during the fertile time is wrong???

The statement is *contrasting *NFP against ABC.

The logic is there… I’m sorry you’re missing it…

 

[PaulinVA]

**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

Momor, please parse this sentence and explain which of the clauses (anticipation…, accomplishment…, or development of consequences) NFP is used to render procreation impossible.

What action is being taken?

 

[whm]

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.)

I agree with this, but as you said intention is the key, if a user of NFP intends to use NFP with the (mis)understanding that it makes procreation impossible, that might be a problem. When people complain that “NFP didn’t work for me, we got pregnant”, they may not be very well informed on A) that NFP does not make conception impossible and B) they have to be open to life and God’s will. These folks my end up being tempted to use ABC due to having fostered the wrong mindset.

Proper clear, consistent and complete teachings on NFP is the key.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I agree with this, but as you said intention is the key, if a user of NFP intends to use NFP with the (mis)understanding that it makes procreation impossible, that might be a problem. When people complain that “NFP didn’t work for me, we got pregnant”, they may not be very well informed on A) that NFP does not make conception impossible and B) they have to be open to life and God’s will. These folks my end up being tempted to use ABC due to having fostered the wrong mindset.

Proper clear, consistent and complete teachings on NFP is the key.

NFP doesn’t make procreation impossible… it simply doesn’t SEPARATE the unitive from the procreative and therefore it doesn’t cause harm to the morality of the conjugal act.

 

[whm]

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

Yeah but it doesn’t have the same ring to it, and I wouldn’t be able to put into quotes.

1. The average Catholic is going to have trouble understanding that theologically complex wording. The CCC could have had a much clearer statement or at least have both.
2. The teaching has changed quite a bit in the last 50 years even. It has gone from grave (life and death) reasons to serious/just reasons or sometimes no mention or reasons what so ever.
3. At the time of HV there was tremendous pressure from without and within the Church to say ABC is OK. Those forces remained after HV. It is possible that those forces have influenced things without creating outright error.

 

[whm]

NFP doesn’t make procreation impossible… it simply doesn’t SEPARATE the unitive from the procreative and therefore it doesn’t cause harm to the morality of the conjugal act.

I didn’t say that I said if the person using it thinks it does and uses it with that intent that could be a problem.

 

[momor]

**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

Momor, please parse this sentence and explain which of the clauses (anticipation…, accomplishment…, or development of consequences) NFP is used to render procreation impossible.

What action is being taken?

OK. I am talking about NFP here in my descriptions.

“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act (actions such as charting, checking, using artificial tools to check hormone levels) , or in its accomplishment (we only have sex on certain days determined in anticipation of pregnancy free sex) , or in the development of its natural consequences (by rigorously adhering to NFP methods we can be up to 99% sure that sex will be infertile while still morally meeting the criteria of of not interfering with the procreative process ), proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” ( technically pregnancy is not “impossible” but we have done everything we can to avoid it and certainly intend to make sure pregnancy is as unlikely as we can make it) is intrinsically evil.

It seems like it all comes down to technicalities about the how and making those the moral criteria rather than the intent which is where I think the morality is.

 

[Em_in_FL]

OK. I am talking about NFP here in my descriptions.

“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act (actions such as charting, checking, using artificial tools to check hormone levels) , or in its accomplishment (we only have sex on certain days determined in anticipation of pregnancy free sex) , or in the development of its natural consequences (by rigorously adhering to NFP methods we can be up to 99% sure that sex will be infertile while still morally meeting the criteria of of not interfering with the procreative process ), proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” ( technically pregnancy is not “impossible” but we have done everything we can to avoid it and certainly intend to make sure pregnancy is as unlikely as we can make it) is intrinsically evil.

It seems like it all comes down to technicalities about the how and making those the moral criteria rather than the intent which is where I think the morality is.

I understand your misunderstandings…
But the rest of the paragraphs in the Catechism should have clarified this for you…

Just *READ *IT…

In bold it basically says NFP is moral… but in contrast ABC is not…
The “In contrast” part comes AFTER the entire statement on how NFP is moral…

I’m not a lawyer - this isn’t complicated contract law… it’s fairly clearly defined.

2369
"By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

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

 

[PaulinVA]

OK. I am talking about NFP here in my descriptions.

“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act (actions such as charting, checking, using artificial tools to check hormone levels) , or in its accomplishment (we only have sex on certain days determined in anticipation of pregnancy free sex) , or in the development of its natural consequences (by rigorously adhering to NFP methods we can be up to 99% sure that sex will be infertile while still morally meeting the criteria of of not interfering with the procreative process ), proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” ( technically pregnancy is not “impossible” but we have done everything we can to avoid it and certainly intend to make sure pregnancy is as unlikely as we can make it) is intrinsically evil.

It seems like it all comes down to technicalities about the how and making those the moral criteria rather than the intent which is where I think the morality is.

I think you have missed the mark. Hopefully someone else can respond fully to your post.

I will have to check out now. Going to be hiking the Appalachian Trail for a few days…

 

[peregrinator_it]

Yeah but it doesn’t have the same ring to it, and I wouldn’t be able to put into quotes.

Heh. True.

1. The average Catholic is going to have trouble understanding that theologically complex wording.

Right, but the CCC’s primary audience is bishops and priests, not lay people. Although I really don’t think it would hurt lay people to have a little Plato/Aristotle (because “telos” is really a branch from his thought)/Augustine/Thomas Aquinas etc. Especially if they are college-educated anyway.

1. The teaching has changed quite a bit in the last 50 years even. It has gone from grave (life and death) reasons to serious/just reasons or sometimes no mention or reasons what so ever.

The principles of the teaching haven’t changed-- always, we must respect persons as unique individuals made in the image and likeness of God.

What **has **changed (and, actually, the Church pre-Vatican II was a driving force in this change, because she was searching for ways to help women who were finding themselves in situations like St. Gianna Molla’s (a concern for maternal mortality) through Papal commissions of doctors/scientists) is our level of scientific understanding. That is a good thing. God made us to know Him and part of knowing Him is knowing His creation.

Any changes in the teaching are applications of those unchanging truths to our new natural knowledge.

1. At the time of HV there was tremendous pressure from without and within the Church to say ABC is OK. Those forces remained after HV. It is possible that those forces have influenced things without creating outright error.

I’d like to know if there’s any theological basis for this idea of “not error” but not good. (It’s an honest question- the way I see it there’s error and there’s truth. I don’t really understand how there can be a middle ground theologically, but maybe I’m mistaken.)

I think you and I and a bunch other posters suspect that people are not as self-sacrificing and generous as they could be in the area of child-bearing. But, even if that’s true that does not mean that the Church should teach less than the truth out of fear that she’s “enabling” somebody somewhere.

I think we need to be careful about generosity, too. Because in the end, even the way that we want to be generous may not be in God’s will for us, despite our good intentions. I think of St. Francis of Assisi, who wanted so badly to give his life as a martyr that he went straight to the Saracens at the height of the Fifth Crusade. Guess what? That self-giving was not the self-giving that God wanted of him. I also think of St. Thomas More, who felt it was in God’s will to fly under Henry VII’s radar for as long as he could…

If we can’t even measure our own generosity correctly against God’s will, how can we even think to measure someone else’s?

 

[momor]

I understand your misunderstandings…
But the rest of the paragraphs in the Catechism should have clarified this for you…

Just *READ *IT…

In bold it basically says NFP is moral… but in contrast ABC is not…
The “In contrast” part comes AFTER the entire statement on how NFP is moral…

I’m not a lawyer - this isn’t complicated contract law… it’s fairly clearly defined.

You are too quick to dismiss the points I made about how NFP can be described just like ABC. This is the crux of my entire point. The descriptions the Church uses appear disingenuous.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I think you have missed the mark. Hopefully someone else can respond fully to your post.

I will have to check out now. Going to be hiking the Appalachian Trail for a few days…

Please tell me you’re taking your wife and not playing politician…

Have fun!

 

[Em_in_FL]

You are too quick to dismiss the points I made about how NFP can be described just like ABC. This is the crux of my entire point. The descriptions the Church uses appear disingenuous.

You’re going to have to discuss this with your priest at this point.
We’ve gone over definitions about the use of the word procreation and how it’s not the same as fertility.
We’ve gone over the twofold requirements that the conjugal act be both unitive and procreative.
We’ve gone over the fact that there is no sin involved when taking recourse to the infertile periods of the woman’s cycle.

I really can’t help your understanding beyond that…
As with many other teachings that Catholics can struggle over… I encourage you to pray about it rather than find fault with the teachings.

 

[peregrinator_it]

You are too quick to dismiss the points I made about how NFP can be described just like ABC. This is the crux of my entire point. The descriptions the Church uses appear disingenuous.

a) NFP can’t be described like ABC. That is the meaning of the passage you have been interpreting. Or at this point contradicting. It does not seek to, or in fact, render procreation impossible.

b) I think what you really mean is that NFP can be used with a contraceptive intent, thus rendering it a morally bad act. I don’t think anyone here disagrees with you. (For that matter total abstinence can be used with a contraceptive intent. A mentality that rejects procreation is bad, no matter what the actions that accompany it.)

c) Possibly, however, you think no reasons are serious enough to make NFP use moral. There you stand in contradiction to Church teaching.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Please tell me you’re taking your wife and not playing politician…

Have fun!

 

[momor]

I think you and I and a bunch other posters suspect that people are not as self-sacrificing and generous as they could be in the area of child-bearing. But, even if that’s true that does not mean that the Church should teach less than the truth out of fear that she’s “enabling” somebody somewhere.

You may be right but you cannot deny that Church approved classes are teaching the techniques I have been pointing out and there are ever increasing attempts to find technology to define the fertile periods as narrowly as possible. Why? To make sure that those who don’t want to get pregnant can make pregnancy about as impossible as it can humanly be made to be while still having sex just for pleasure.

 

[whm]

I think the discussion should also include this section too.

"2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart."

I think a lot of the statements on this thread can be boiled down to different interpretation of this section. Everyone seems to agree that NFP is allowed in some circumstances (it says so in the CCC), so this appears to be the section is where the real debate is.

 

[peregrinator_it]

You may be right but you cannot deny that Church approved classes are teaching the techniques I have been pointing out and there are ever increasing attempts to find technology to define the fertile periods as narrowly as possible.

Errrr… I don’t think one can in fact “define the fertile periods” narrowly. I understand what you are saying (esp. in the second half of your quote.) I hear you as being worried that at some point we’ll just p(name removed by moderator)oint ovulation and then NFP practiced to avoid will be 100% effective in avoiding, and all Catholics (or many) will become defacto contraceptors (contracepters?). I just think your concern is a little… misplaced.

First off, combined fertility contains **a lot **factors. Particularly, female reproductive hormones have a very complicated and not well understood interaction with other body hormones, thyroid hormones, insulin, etc. We’ll come up with a cure for diabetes (and possibly cancer), before we decode reproductive hormones (and thus fully understand the female reproductive cycle.)

And that’s without understanding any of the factors that affect male fertility… (even less well known.)

Why? To make sure that those who don’t want to get pregnant can make pregnancy about as impossible as it can humanly be made to be while still having sex just for pleasure.

Secondly, (and in response to second part of your quote) it’s much more likely, given where the research funding goes, that we’ll develop some nearly complication-less and highly “effective” form of sterilization (medicinal or surgical) before we can use fertility monitoring to the same end. If people want to contracept, they’re going to contracept. The problem is not in the technology, but in people’s hearts.

Other users have rightly pointed out, that because NFP relies on self-control and self-examination it tends to lead people away from the “sex is for pleasure only” mentality. And in connection with hearts, this thread should come as a comfort to you. It’s filled with committed NFP users (and one committed abstinence-only user) and nowhere do I see evidence that people have a contraceptive mentality.

Also, I believe with St. Thomas Aquinas, that creation, though fallen, is essentially good. And insofar as we try to cooperate with our good God’s good design, we inoculate ourselves a little against an unnatural contraceptive mentality…

(And I think evidence of this is that “NFP science” can not only be used to help couples conceive, but also to diagnose disease and prevent miscarriage.)

 

[Jennifer_J]

You may be right but you cannot deny that Church approved classes are teaching the techniques I have been pointing out and there are ever increasing attempts to find technology to define the fertile periods as narrowly as possible. Why? To make sure that those who don’t want to get pregnant can make pregnancy about as impossible as it can humanly be made to be while still having sex just for pleasure.

I think you are wrong. There are not ever increasing attempts to find ways to p(name removed by moderator)oint exact ovulation (and short of ultrasound, there is no way to do this). What is being sought is for women who don’t have as clear signs as others to be able to have acurate info so they don’t seek contraception. All the current, and I dare say future forms of NFP seek to be accurate for as many women as possible, and that’s a tall order due to the complexity of fertility.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I think the discussion should also include this section too.

"2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. (SNIP)

I think a lot of the statements on this thread can be boiled down to different interpretation of this section. Everyone seems to agree that NFP is allowed in some circumstances (it says so in the CCC), so this appears to be the section is where the real debate is.

(Emphasis above mine.)

Yes, exactly.

But the Church has never dictated what is the right level of generosity for anyone. (And is right to do so. I’m thinking of the story of the widow’s mite-- we don’t know how much others “have to give” and what might appear paltry to us could be heroic sacrifice on their part.)

I would absolutely agree that any marriage prep program should present the Church’s teaching that children are integral part of marriage and that married couples are called to generosity. (And that NFP should be presented as a woman’s health tool with many uses. Although, this is exactly how NFP was presented to me… but I didn’t take a diocesan class.)

Unfortunately, this thread began not with the question, “what constitutes generosity” but with the statement “I think NFP is ungenerous” so we’ve taken this long to get there…