Theological basis for NFP?

[davidv]

Not quite…If in NFP there is no sexual act, there is no need for NFP. In NFP, there is in fact a sexual act, ordered to having sex at a specific time with the intent of not having children. This is, of course, a sin, according to the Catholic Church.

The Church has allowed exceptions, which in the opinion of many is illogical and without Scriptural basis, and which is the reason this thread exists in the first place.

Can you provide Scriptural basis for this distinction that the Church has made, or does it not exist???

It appears that some basics are being missed.

**1750 **The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts

Let us consider this example for NFP.

1. Circumstance - For a variety of reasons a couple has a just reason to postpone pregnancy - circumstances are moral because of just reason
2. The end/intention - Avoid pregnancy - This is moral as just reasons exist
3. The object (or means) - Abstain during fertile time. This is morally neutral.

All three of the aspects are moral or neutral, so the action is moral.

 

[cc1999]

It appears that some basics are being missed.

Let us consider this example for NFP.

1. Circumstance - For a variety of reasons a couple has a just reason to postpone pregnancy - circumstances are moral because of just reason
2. The end/intention - Avoid pregnancy - This is moral as just reasons exist
3. The object (or means) - Abstain during fertile time. This is morally neutral.

All three of the aspects are moral or neutral, so the action is moral.

Am I correct in interpreting your response to mean that the basis for being allowed to used NFP in very specific circumstances is based on moral interpretations using Canon Law, rather than based on anything specifically addressed in the Bible?

 

[ddarko]

The rule of sex you stated said that a certain act of sex was wrong because of its consequence of decreasing the likelihood of conception. Complete joining of the couple was frustrated because of this decrease in likelihood. If this is not the case, then you need to give an alternative way that condoms frustrates the joining. That is to say, that the joining is not frustrated by the function of decreasing likelihood of conception, but by some other means. Given that you cannot to this, your rule of sex referred to consequences after all.

No offense but now you are doing circles. I stated clearly how the Church views the sexual act. Condoms simply VIOLATE the nature of the sexual act. i.e. when a couple is naturally fertile, it prevents them from conceiving while still having sex. Get it?

NFP poses no such problem. It is simply abstinence really. All that matters in the case of NFP is intention. To embrace your view is rather absurd too since it would mean that every moment I am not having sex with my wife is a sin.

ABC’s are wrong because it is within the sexual act.

Like I don’t know how many ways to tell this to you in English. NFP, no SEX. ABC, within SEX. So rules on how Sex should take place DOES NOT apply to NFP. You are creating a False dilemma.

Now you are doing the merry-go-round for some personal satisfaction to justify yourself. I am afraid I can take no part in it.

Now, in a given situation where sex is desired by the couple practicing nfp, the couple have decided not to have sex because the female is fertile. In that specific situation, you would be rejecting the fertility of the female by not having sex. To say that it is only wrong to reject the fertility of the female by manipulating the act, suggests that it is not the rejection of fertility that is the problem with the act, but something different about the act. So is it something different about the act, or is it not? If it isn’t, why would rejection of fertility only be a problem if it is a part of an act of sex? The point of my previous post was to try to kick-start your intuitions about how strange it is to make this distinction. If you don’t like that a fertile couple rejects fertility, why would the method matter? And again, you cannot simply say that the method matters because it decreases the likelihood of conception, since that consequence is even more apparent if you don’t have sex during the fertile period at all (it would also be circular reasoning).

For all your smart use of logic, you can’t seem to grasp the basic concept.

NFP, intention plays the number #1 role in determining the Moral nature.

ABC, IMMORAL by default since it violates the sexual act.

Except tradition needs to be substantiated by scripture, or do you consider something to be right just because it is tradition? We are discussing what the theological basis for nfp is, which is covered by the topic of the thread.

What on earth are you talking about? I’ve been having this kind of view on Tradition been mentioned few times now by people who are “non-Catholics”. Now this is not the thread to give you a lesson on Tradition and there are other thread that do that. In brief, Tradition tells you HOW to INTERPRET scripture. To say that Tradition must be substantiated by Scripture is meaningless nonsense.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Not quite…If in NFP there is no sexual act, there is no need for NFP. In NFP, there is in fact a sexual act, ordered to having sex at a specific time with the intent of not having children. This is, of course, a sin, according to the Catholic Church.

The Church has allowed exceptions, which in the opinion of many is illogical and without Scriptural basis, and which is the reason this thread exists in the first place.

Can you provide Scriptural basis for this distinction that the Church has made, or does it not exist???

Seriously, are you just being stubborn? Because what you said above is blatantly false.

NFP is not SEX. I mean how hard is this for you to understand? NFP, is abstinence. According to you, me choosing to not have sex with my wife right now is SEX. Do you realize how wrong that view is?

First before we even go to Scripture, you need to show that you are logically capable. Right now, you don’t seem to be able to distinguish a LOGICAL difference between NFP and ABC.

ABC is what you do in sex. In ABC you have SEX and PREVENTION OF CONCEPTION.

NFP, is simply abstinence. NO SEX.

So even your judgment that NFP is immoral is based on its intention.

Now as for scriptural grounds, you really shouldn’t even be asking for this if you spend some time thinking about the logic. Who on earth needs to justify abstinence from Sex? If a couple can’t marry due to financial difficulties, don’t they postpone the wedding? Are we all called to have sex as much as possible from the moment of marriage non-stop? Who cares about financial difficulties, lets just get it on and God will provide right? WRONG. You are given a brain and ability to reason. It is YOUR responsibility to co-operate with God’s plan. So as long as you do not sin, it is ok. In the case of ABC’s it is not a valid method because it involves incorrect practice of the sexual act. In the case of NFP, its is thus moral.

The intentions NFP can be wrong are when a couple decides because they are greedy for money to practice NFP and have no kids at all or no more.

But an intention to practice NFP because one can’t support anymore kids given the current financial/psychological or health situation is obviously logically valid. That is the moral responsibility of a Parent who co-operates with God’s plan towards the children they may conceive. You have NFP that gives you a correct method of co-operation while you have ABC which is an inherently sinful method.

So for once, start looking at this problem logically.

God Bless

 

[davidv]

Am I correct in interpreting your response to mean that the basis for being allowed to used NFP in very specific circumstances is based on moral interpretations using Canon Law, rather than based on anything specifically addressed in the Bible?

You would not be correct.

Where did I meantion either Cannon Law or the Bible?

 

[ddarko]

Something I must add to both CC1999 and Persuader,

You both might be under the impression that a couple practicing NFP to not have kids makes it automatically an IMMORAL intention. THAT IS FALSE.

If a couple is going through hardships, unable to support a child, then the intention to not have children is MORAL. It is a moral RESPONSIBILITY of the couple.

On the other hand, a couple who chooses to not have kids because they are on a materialistic craze is IMMORAL.

Now as you can see, the above intentions are somewhat personal and really between God and the couple. It is like trying to judge if a person is in love with someone or lusting.

But in the case of ABC, by default it is IMMORAL since it violates the sexual act of giving each other completely. So even the couple who is undergoing hardships MAY NOT USE ABC’s to prevent conception.

So it boils down to what I’ve been saying,

NFP: Abstinence. Morally neutral.

ABC: IMMORAL since it violates sexual act.

Conclusion: NFP can be practiced with right intentions. ABC’s are IMMORAL no matter WHAT the intention.

Maybe this line of thought will make it clear for you. This is the only thing that I can think of as being a stumbling block to see the difference between NFP and ABC.

So I hope this clarified.

God Bless

 

[cc1999]

You would not be correct.

Where did I meantion either Cannon Law or the Bible?

So what is your basis. Apparently it is not based on the Bible, Canon Law, or Tradition. Absolutely nobody can answer this. Is it personal opinion?

 

[cc1999]

Do you realize how wrong that view is?

Yes, in fact I do, because it is your interpretation of what you think I said, rather than what I said.

First before we even go to Scripture, you need to show that you are logically capable.

I am, in fact. I prefer leave my background out of the discussion and stick to the discussion at hand. The fundamental problem is that if someone with my training can’t understand this line of reasoning (or lack thereof), chances are that others lacking this type of logical reasoning can’t either…which is exactly the case, and why this thread exists in the first place. No a single human soul in my entire life have been able to explain this issue in any manner that makes any sense.

Right now, you don’t seem to be able to distinguish a LOGICAL difference between NFP and ABC.

Actually, I can. You may have noticed my intentional avoidance of the mention of ABC in the post you reference, simply because it is not relevant to the crux of my question. I suspected that you would insert ABC back into the argument in the attempt to avoid answering my question.

So for once, start looking at this problem logically.

I am.

Let’s start over.

Where is the Scriptural basis that a couple may chose to have sex with the specific intent not to have children, such as during infertile periods, in some circumstances and not others. The Church makes this distinction, not me. Did Christ really say, or imply, this?

Do not mention ABC in the answer since it has nothing to do with the question.

 

[ddarko]

Let’s start over.

Where is the Scriptural basis that a couple may chose to have sex with the specific intent not to have children, such as during infertile periods, in some circumstances and not others. The Church makes this distinction, not me. Did Christ really say, or imply, this?

Do not mention ABC in the answer since it has nothing to do with the question.

Hey, you are the one who kept mentioning ABC’s as same as NFP and the difference was semantics.

So does this mean you agree that NFP is not the same as ABC?

I want you to agree first to the following before we proceed. I don’t want to go around in circles as I have done here once already.

NFP is purely a matter of intention. (We still have to address your question of what intentions are justifiable)

ABC are morally wrong because of the incorrect sex act regardless of the intention.

Do we agree?

If we do, we can move to your question on Scripture.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I am going to assume it is a YES and proceed anyway to address your question on Scripture.

First thing to realize is that Scripture CONDEMNS contraception. BUT no where does it condemn abstinence from Sex. The Blessed Virgin Mother who we hold at great esteem did not engage in sexual activity. That is Scripture and Tradition (now if you are Sola Scriptura adherent, my deepest condolences and I am afraid I DON’T CARE here because this is about Roman Catholicism).

So now we see that the Bible has said nothing against abstaining from sex in marriage.

Then we have to see the Bible passages which speak of moral responsibility of Parents to Children.

You combine those two together and you see that a couple has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to care for their children. Now add to that the fact that God has given humans reason. Thus, they can take in to account the situation they are in and then make judgment as to whether they can support a child. Now since abstinence is not IMMORAL, the couple may practice it as long they BOTH MUTUALLY agree.

Now at the same time, the way the sacrament of marriage is described in Genesis, we realize the couple must also be open to life if possible. So a couple who is against having children for invalid reasons is also doing something IMMORAL.

For more on this refer to Post #184 which you seem to have missed completely.

So I think your problem is that you have a very narrow view of what you are looking for in Scripture. You want to see Jesus say something like “PRACTICE NFP MY DEAR SONS AND DAUGHTERS”. But that obviously does not exist. That actually DOES NOT need to exist in the Scripture. Its not too much to ask that you put 2 and 2 together after you are given the basic axioms.

God Bless

 

[XinMinny]

Darko,
Sorry to interrupt this discussion. I believe that you are having a little difficulty because you have 2 different conversations happening.

In the first, Persuader is asking why the act of marriage is violated in ABC. The question there seems to me to be, “Please explain how the act is violated in ABC, without using the idea of it being contraceptive.” I request the idea, “without it being contraceptive” because contraception is an intent to Persuader. So, to say, “the partners aren’t giving themselves completely to each other because they are withholding their fertility” really says, “they want to avoid conception.” If one argues that it the problem is the lack of willingness to accept conception, then that argument really is not about the physical part of the act, but it is about the intent. The challenge from Persuader is to explain the violation without talking about intent.

The second conversation is with cc1999, and it is about “Why are there some cases in which spacing of children is allowed?” And, please explain from Scriptures. I believe you have done this very well - discussing the moral responsibility to one’s children, and discussing how that is a very personal matter, one which cannot be reduced to a set of rules.

So, these are the 2 conversations. I am looking forward to further explanation of #1, because I still don’t get it, even though I suffered through a 400+ post thread on the same topic last year.

XinMinny

 

[cc1999]

Now at the same time, the way the sacrament of marriage is described in Genesis, we realize the couple must also be open to life if possible.

Where does it state “if possible?”

 

[PassingThru]

ddarko, I think to look at it another way, try answering this way:

Similar to what Persuader said, look at what it is that makes ABC a moral violation. Of course, this has to be outside the scope of intention, and can not rely on a presupposition of NFP being good, or ABC being bad. That would circular, I am sure you agree.

Now, the second part, is to apply that same logic, whatever it may be, to the practice of NFP not just as the physical act, but as a program over long periods of time.

I think you would agree the simply looking at an action or inaction in a vacuum without regard to context is, well, ambiguous. For example. Sitting on a bench is completely neutral. Sitting on a bench while watching a toddler slowly wander into traffic is a big moral no-no. Similarly, no one here is proposing not having sex by itself is a problem. However, systematically avoiding any potential sex that may result in a child and only enjoying the act when you are assured no child will result is NOT the same thing. Your answer, to this point, is to say each INDIVIDUAL act is fine. Well, of course. If all I had to answer was “is sitting on a bench immoral”, the answer is no. Every time. You need to answer why we plainly see that sitting on a bench could be morally questionable, yet we do not apply this simple logic to NFP.

 

[XinMinny]

PT,
It seems to me we were through this a bunch last year, no? In any case I just wanted to mention here that ddarko has already answered about NFP in the large scope. As has been mentioned here, when it is viewed in a large lens:
If it is used for the sake of preventing children over a long time, and so as to be able to be connected with no risk of childbearing, then it is sin. (I am not Catholic, so I am assuming I am following the logic correctly here.)
In this way, NFP as a system can be sinful, judging its intent. ABC has the same sinful intent.

However, given just cause (sorry, my words), NFP is not necessarily sinful. If not used continuously… I don’t know all the parameters, but as a system, for spacing of children, it can have proper intent, and then not be sinful.

However, again… Apparently, in the case of ABC, there is more at play than simply intent. Apparently, if I am understanding correctly, there is a definition by the Church, that the act itself is somehow disordered in the case of the use of ABC. And, this is the part that has never made sense to me. I say that because for the act itself to be disordered requires in my mind some way in which it is changed that does not depend on intent. I say it must be that way, because if it is only intent (say, I want to withhold my fertility), then it must be allowed that the couple practicing NFP and uniting in the non-fertile time of the cycle, is also disordering the union in the same way…

Am I understanding the correct way to frame the question?

 

[kepha1]

Answering Four Common Objections
About Contraception and Natural Family Planning

***Openness to life will strengthen and sanctify your marriage. Contraception will weaken and endanger it. ***

---

1) “I have a medical reason to use contraception.”
**2) “I don’t see any difference between contraception and NFP.”
*********3) “My conscience tells me that it’s *********not wrong for me to use contraception, and I must follow my conscience.”
4) "I’ve tried NFP and it didn’t work.”
**

 

[cc1999]

Maybe this line of thought will make it clear for you. This is the only thing that I can think.

Someone noted earlier:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

I’ll assume for a moment that you accept the above line of argument regarding morality from CCC 1750.

The person argued the following:

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts
Let us consider this example for NFP.

1. Circumstance - For a variety of reasons a couple has a just reason to postpone pregnancy - circumstances are moral because of just reason
2. The end/intention - Avoid pregnancy - This is moral as just reasons exist
3. The object (or means) - Abstain during fertile time. This is morally neutral.

All three of the aspects are moral or neutral, so the action is moral.

What is interesting about this line of logic is that if there is no just reason for avoiding pregnancy (or not having children), then the intent is neither moral or neutral; it is immoral. My focus is on this “intent” portion of the above. The Church and I happen to agree on most of it. What I don’t understand is the basis for the “just reason.” It seems to be inferred rather than explicit.

OTOH, others (including yourself) are focusing on “the object.” That would be a separate discussion of above moral argument noted in CC1750. I can understand your point regarding that. However, just because your point on “the object” may be valid does not make the issue pertaining to Scriptural support for the other part of the moral argument, “intent,” go away. If the object is moral, but the intent is immoral, then it is still immoral.

 

[PassingThru]

PT,
It seems to me we were through this a bunch last year, no? In any case I just wanted to mention here that ddarko has already answered about NFP in the large scope. As has been mentioned here, when it is viewed in a large lens:
If it is used for the sake of preventing children over a long time, and so as to be able to be connected with no risk of childbearing, then it is sin. (I am not Catholic, so I am assuming I am following the logic correctly here.)
In this way, NFP as a system can be sinful, judging its intent. ABC has the same sinful intent.

However, given just cause (sorry, my words), NFP is not necessarily sinful. If not used continuously… I don’t know all the parameters, but as a system, for spacing of children, it can have proper intent, and then not be sinful.

However, again… Apparently, in the case of ABC, there is more at play than simply intent. Apparently, if I am understanding correctly, there is a definition by the Church, that the act itself is somehow disordered in the case of the use of ABC. And, this is the part that has never made sense to me. I say that because for the act itself to be disordered requires in my mind some way in which it is changed that does not depend on intent. I say it must be that way, because if it is only intent (say, I want to withhold my fertility), then it must be allowed that the couple practicing NFP and uniting in the non-fertile time of the cycle, is also disordering the union in the same way…

Am I understanding the correct way to frame the question?

Hey XinMin, yeah, I think it was you from a ways back.

Yes, you have basically summarized my thinking.

The “long time” I am mentioning is just to get past what I think is a very, very weak response along the lines of “well, not having sex is a simple, moral thing to do”. That answer COMPLETELY ignores and distorts the question. It is not different than my above scenario and answering that it is moral to sit on a bench.

Your last paragraph is spot on. As I mentioned, ask how ABC is immoral, apply to NFP as a systematic program, no intent is permissible, assuming ABC and NFP are both neutral.

As soon as the above is attempted, I have yet to see a salient point made without an appeal to faith. Not that that is bad, it just is not sound logic to explain a point of reason, thats all.

 

[cc1999]

As soon as the above is attempted, I have yet to see a salient point made without an appeal to faith. Not that that is bad, it just is not sound logic to explain a point of reason, thats all.

This is basically the issue with my point also. Support for the “just reasons” to allow a couple to avoid having children appears to be done by inference.

 

[ddarko]

Where does it state “if possible?”

This is basically the issue with my point also. Support for the “just reasons” to allow a couple to avoid having children appears to be done by inference.

Once again, we have big problems more so than with NFP. Your view of Scripture is a bit immature.

Scripture does not spell things out for you (sometimes it does but other times we have to infer). You seem to be of the understanding that any inference is somehow less binding than the axioms that were used to infer.

If I may remind you, when someone uses deduction, the conclusions are as strong as the axioms and premises used in deduction. In this case, the inference is based on Scriptural teaching on Morality, Human Dignity, Conception, Nature of marriage, Nature of the sexual act etc. It is not a direct statement but a deductive conclusion. Thus the “if” exceptions hold as much weight as Scripture itself since that was what was used to infer.

God Bless

 

[Good_Daughter]

So, when I think about sex and procreation I think about a physical process. Little bits of DNA combining, chemical processes, ovulation dates, the psychology and neuroscience of the couples relationship…technically I could take it all the way down to the atomic level, and even speculate about what happens on the quantum level. Everything about it is materialistic. So for me, there is a strong contradiction in what you are collectively telling me, because I know there isn’t any materialistic reason why contraceptives are different than NFP. There isn’t, they are identical.

Except with NFP, couples leave a physical pathway open for the union of male and female seed. Contraception attempts to do the opposite. That is a physical difference between the two.

For Catholics though, this is actually a magic ritual. Every time you have sex, the ideal is that it is a ritualized thing that includes your god in the process, and the assumption is that if conception occurs, it is because God interceded and actually involved Himself in the process. Without God, there can be no proper consummation of marriage, and without God, procreation is impossible. When a form of contraception is involved, you are potentially thwarting the involvement of your deity, thus breaking the ritual.

Catholics believe in a God who cannot be thwarted. The “involvement of our deity” in sex is purely for our benefit.

So I think that is what keeps stumping me. I still think there isn’t any difference, because I’m not religious so the magical parts of the thing are not a part of my world-view.

If I make that assumption though and operate within your world-view, it makes sense, and I can understand the thought process.

So, Alyosha13, maybe that helps clear things up for you? The short answer would be, “From a materialistic viewpoint, there is no difference and it doesn’t make any sense to separate the two methods. From a Catholic standpoint, sex is about ritual and contraceptives break that ritual by denying God the ability to participate.”

Don’t forget the physical difference between NFP and contraception. From a Catholic standpoint, contraceptives break that ritual by disregarding God’s physical design for sex.