NFP isn’t periodic abstinence, it just happens to use it as part of the program. The aspect of NFP we are discussing is the use of the martial act during infertile times ONLY. Please do not confuse the issue, or we will get sidetracked.
Wait, wait, wait… so now you’re back to questioning whether it’s LICIT or not?
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/index.shtml
NFP is called Natural Family Planning sometimes called fertility awareness. It is information of physical signs that a woman presents during her fertility cycle: mucous, basal body temp, and cervic position and perhaps a fertility monitor–depends on which form you use. The application of NFP is periodic abstinence–deciding whether to have sex or not based on physical signs and whether a couple has serious/just/grave reasons. That’s what this discussion is about. Infact, this is what the Catechism calls it…periodic continence…it is not contraception.
Eh what? I wasn’t even making an argument. I was just saying that the aspect of NFP we are discussing is the use of the marital act during infertile times ONLY. Not the periods of abstinence between, not the use of NFP for conception.Wait, wait, wait… so now you’re back to questioning whether it’s LICIT or not?
I’m confused… because I’m fairly certain NFP IS defined as periodic abstinence… recourse to the infertile phases… it’s in church teachings… right??? We’ve gone over this one…
Okay Alexander… help me out here because it’s driving me nuts…
What exactly are you arguing? Do you agree with the church teaching or not? Are you questioning church teachings? Are you trying to make sure every couple throws caution to the wind?
I can’t get a good grasp of what you really think…
Signs that are used to determine “green” days.
There is NO period of time in NFP during which the man is infertile.
I’m not arguing the science, I’m arguing the intent, and if what you say is true, than why do so many Catholics and NFP teachers boast about how effective NFP is for avoiding pregnancy?
No need to get testy. It was my suggestion to play the why game and you took me up on it but all you did was cut and paste prepared statements. My game, my rules. If you don’t want to answer questions or discuss that way, fine.
Because they’re trying to convince women that marrying doesn’t sentence one to a lifetime of abject slavery and they’re trying to convince married women not to abstain from sex with their husbands for the rest of their lives after going through pregnancy and childbirth.
Um, I take it you don’t approve of NFP then? I don’t understand what you’re arguing about? Do you think I’m trying to promote NFP, or perhaps you think Catholics should be using ABC?
This is not reflective of Catholic teaching on free will and divine providence. Please consult the Catechism–and, more directly related to this topic, Karol Wojtyla’s “Love and Responsibility”. NFP using couples display no less trust in God than couples who choose not to use NFP to plan their families.
Birth control/the regulation of births is not illicit. Read Humanae Vitae.
Periodic abstinence and having sex during the infertile period are two sides of the same coin when we’re discussing using NFP to avoid pregnancy. You can’t talk about “sex during the infertile period” and not acknowledge periodic abstinence. Using NFP to avoid pregnancy REQUIRES that the couple abstain from sex. Why are you so eager to gloss over this?
By way of response I am reposting part of an exchange from #369 which addresses some of your topic and never got answered by the person I was responding to. Perhaps you can. My responses are in bold.
Come on that is a links page to a bunch of boring sounding stuff. Can you admit that the main most reader friendly page that has a section titled “Who can use NFP” could have been better written to include something about discernment? Do you think that many husbands will get beyond the basic info page (they should but will they)?
How is God’s design “excepted” by the timing of sex? Where does God command that married couples have sex at certain times? Where does His design indicate that they ought to have sex at certain times rather than others?
Because, if a couple has serious/just/grave reasons to avoid then they need a licit means of doing so that is relatively effective. The Church outlines two such methods. Total abstinence and NFP. Total abstinence is not a “good” in marriage. The church teaches that marriage is a sacrament and the marital act is a renewal of the sacrament; thus a “good.” So when a couple has serious/just/grave reasons to avoid, NFP is a licit option to be employed during such times for the good of the couple.
I had 5 kids using NFP correrctly. I almost died having the last one. My body does NOT meet any NFP model other than “your body is in a permanent state of pseudo-fertility.” As a nursing mother of 5 I refused to take natural or artificial hormones to force it to meet the model.
I’m not testy (though I am a bit busy with family/dinner/kids/etc), this is NOT your game. This is a discussion among many people and asking/answering Why? to everything does nothing to answer the question as there is never an end to WHY? (I have SIX children, I know all about the game). I didn’t take you up on it. I answered your question with official Church teaching. You just don’t seem to like what it says.
I am going to sum up:How is God’s design “excepted” by the timing of sex?
God designed a full monthly cycle of fertile and non fertile periods. NFP only makes use of part of the cycle for the marital union. There is nothing inherent in God’s design to indicate this was what He intended His children to do.
Where does God command that married couples have sex at certain times? **Where does His design indicate that they ought to have sex at certain times rather than others? **
Exactly! His design did not make the fertile and non=fertile times inherently obvious. Perhaps it was not His intention that His children would be splitting up the month into sex / no sex periods instead of following the natural rhythym of their biologically driven desires.
Again, God’s design of female fertility is such that a woman is not fertile for most of her cycle. You seem to be suggesting that God messed up in designing women in such a way…
Where on earth did you get such an idea from anything I posted?
Finally, what you are talking about–“intent” and “totality of actions” have NOTHING TO DO with the licitness of NFP. That is why the teaching documents on this topic speak of not frustrating the purposes of each per se act–each act IN ITSELF. A problem of “intention” and “totality of actions” can occur–every NFP “proponent” on this thread has admitted as such. But even a sin of selfishness or a lack of discernment on the part of an NFP using couple avoiding pregnancy does not affect the objective morality of NFP, nor does it suddenly transform NFP into ABC.
Since when has the Church ever divorced a person’s intent and totality of actions from morality? The insistence that having sex without a barrier or a pill, etc. somehow makes things OK IN ITSELF while ignoring the larger picture of what is actually going on is one of the things that I have been saying makes no sense. I don’t care if it’s what the Church teaches - I am saying that it IT MAKES NO MORAL SENSE. Insisting that the only licit way to have sex is without some barrier to conception while ignoring that the timing of NFP is also a barrier to conception IS INCONSISTENT on it’s face.
OBJECTIVELY, NFP and ABC use are NEVER the same.
SUBJECTIVELY, NFP use can be abused, in much the same way that ABC is subjectively “justified”.
Those “many Catholics” who see NFP as a contraceptive practice haven’t long (or perhaps ever) practiced NFP or they would know that NFP doesn’t work as a contraceptive practice.
Alright, I think I see why you are confused. The Church teaches that one may regulate births with “well grounded” reasons, The Church also teaches that you cannot separate the unitive and procreative purpose of the marital act. You see NFP (as always used?) as separating these too purposes by allowing the unitive without the procreative.*
*If you read the catechism, it specifically defines “ordered to procreation” to mean within the specific act and uses this phrase which might be helpful “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life” CCC 2366. Open to the transmission of life is different than just being “open to life” or being “procreative” as you define it.
*Before I even learned NFP I knew when I ovulated, ovulation in a woman is not unobservable (sorry about the double negative/ is observable) without a thermometer or any other specific NFP practice. Many women have “middlesmirch (sp?)” Where they have cramp like pains during ovulation. I had very noticeable mucus discharge associated with my ovulation, still others are very regular and could rely on just counting day to know when they ovulated.Therefore ovulation is inherently obvious in some women.