Theological basis for NFP?

[Good_Daughter]

So, to move forward, it simply has to be the case that abc is wrong, not only because it decreases the likelihood of conception by manipulation, but because of the manner in which it is accomplished. It is something bad about manipulating in certain ways. What I think most abc-using Catholics wants to know is, why? Why is one method better than the others? Why is it bad to manipulate in some ways, but not others? It is in answer to this that you cannot simply say that abc is wrong because it decreases the likelihood of conception, since decreasing the likelihood of conception is not a sin if you use nfp. This would be the faulty reasoning I am speaking of. The claim is that decreasing the likelihood of conception becomes as sin if and only if conjoined with abc.

So, what exactly produces the sin? Does god become offended if he notices some specific kinds of manipulation? Where in the bible does it say so? Why does he prefer some kinds over others? Are the people involved harmed by using abc, but not by using nfp? Who or what is being harmed or offended by the use of abc? Put simply, what is the problem?

You’re right, Catholicism teaches that decreasing the likelihood of conception is not the sin with ABC, but that the physical manipulation used to accomplish it is sinful.

When married couples have sex, God requires that they leave a physical pathway open for the union of male and female seed. The rest (fertility, conception) is entirely up to Him, although NFP gives us a window into His design.

A basis for this teaching is Genesis 2:24, echoed in Matthew 19:5, “Man has now to leave father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one body”. It seems impossible to contracept and follow this teaching.

Form is important to God. The creation account in Genesis is all about form. In part, the sexual requirements taught in Catholicism are about form as well. The marital act that leaves a physical pathway open for the union of male and female seed is procreative in form. Why does Catholicism require married couples to use this procreative form? Because that’s all we can do. We can’t set out to engage in a procreative act, we can only know in hindsight that an act was procreative. We can set out to have sex in the procreative form (even during pregnancy, menopause, etc.).

 

[Persuader]

THE ACT is done IN A WAY that is capable of generating new life.

Remember… who the couple is and the state of their fertility is not part of the issue.

No, it isn’t. Look, imagine you want to shoot something that is 2 km down the field. If you have a shooting device incapable of bridging that distance, the act is not done in a way that is capable of hitting the target. It doesn’t matter that you are pointing the device in the right direction, that its shooting-mechanism is functioning as it should, or that the device contains bullets. No matter what you do, the act is inherently incapable of hitting the target because the equipment is incapable. It is the same for a truly infertile couple. The act is not done in a way that is capable of generating new life since the equipment used for the act is incapable of doing so.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I think you are saying you agree with this then?

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean.

 

[Persuader]

You’re right, Catholicism teaches that decreasing the likelihood of conception is not the sin with ABC, but that the physical manipulation used to accomplish it is sinful.

When married couples have sex, God requires that they leave a physical pathway open for the union of male and female seed. The rest (fertility, conception) is entirely up to Him, although NFP gives us a window into His design.

A basis for this teaching is Genesis 2:24, echoed in Matthew 19:5, “Man has now to leave father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one body”. It seems impossible to contracept and follow this teaching.

Form is important to God. The creation account in Genesis is all about form. In part, the sexual requirements taught in Catholicism are about form as well. The marital act that leaves a physical pathway open for the union of male and female seed is procreative in form. Why does Catholicism require married couples to use this procreative form? Because that’s all we can do. We can’t set out to engage in a procreative act, we can only know in hindsight that an act was procreative. We can set out to have sex in the procreative form (even during pregnancy, menopause, etc.).

Ok. Three points:

1: A married couple using abc may still leave a physical pathway open for the union of male and female seed. The evidence is that abc is not 100% percent effective even if used perfectly. If there wasn’t a physical pathway open for that seed, the effectiveness of abc (perfect use) would be 100%. It isn’t, so there is a physical pathway open for that seed.

2: The bible verse you cite doesn’t speak to the procreative aspect of the joining. It speaks about the couple, and how they are to join and become one. It doesn’t speak about how they join, and create another being. So, it is not clear at all that it is impossible to use contraception and follow this teaching.

3: You claim that form is important to God, and is able to differentiate between nfp and abc, but I am still waiting for the substantiation.

 

[Em_in_FL]

No, it isn’t. Look, imagine you want to shoot something that is 2 km down the field. If you have a shooting device incapable of bridging that distance, the act is not done in a way that is capable of hitting the target. It doesn’t matter that you are pointing the device in the right direction, that its shooting-mechanism is functioning as it should, or that the device contains bullets. No matter what you do, the act is inherently incapable of hitting the target because the equipment is incapable. It is the same for a truly infertile couple. The act is not done in a way that is capable of generating new life since the equipment used for the act is incapable of doing so.

No, it’s more like you don’t have view of the target due to being blind.
Everything you have is capable of getting there - nothing YOU are doing to the act is altering that.
Not being able to see the target due to inherent blindness doesn’t mean it’s impossible for the shot to get there. The shot could get there if you could see the target.
Likewise, the infertile couple isn’t changing the act… they just aren’t fertile.
A contraceptive couple, on the other hand, puts a blindfold on. They are taking action to make it less possible to reach the target.

 

[Persuader]

No, it’s more like you don’t have view of the target due to being blind.
Everything you have is capable of getting there - nothing YOU are doing to the act is altering that.
Not being able to see the target due to inherent blindness doesn’t mean it’s impossible for the shot to get there. The shot could get there if you could see the target.
Likewise, the infertile couple isn’t changing the act… they just aren’t fertile.
A contraceptive couple, on the other hand, puts a blindfold on. They are taking action to make it impossible to reach the target.

If the couple is truly infertile, the problem isn’t that you are blind. A blind person could hit the target if he was lucky. What you have is not capable of getting you there. Your equipment is defective or not up to the task. That renders the act incapable since the act depends on the equipment.

You could say that the contraceptive couple is putting a blindfold on, but they wouldn’t be making it impossible to hit the target. That is a fact as long as contraception is not 100% effective.

 

[Em_in_FL]

If the couple is truly infertile, the problem isn’t that you are blind. A blind person could hit the target if he was lucky. What you have is not capable of getting you there. Your equipment is defective or not up to the task. That renders the act incapable since the act depends on the equipment.

You could say that the contraceptive couple is putting a blindfold on, but they wouldn’t be making it impossible to hit the target. That is a fact as long as contraception is not 100% effective.

BTW - didn’t Abraham and Sarah conceive when thought “impossible”?
Guess they had good luck.

Whether or not they actually conceive is irrelevant.
The morality is describing THE ACT, not the outcome of the act.

 

[Persuader]

BTW - didn’t Abraham and Sarah conceive when thought “impossible”?
Guess they had good luck.

Whether or not they actually conceive is irrelevant.
The morality is describing THE ACT, not the outcome of the act.

Well, apparently, they weren’t completely infertile. Or maybe it’s just a story.

Of course it’s irrelevant whether or they conceive. However, if the act is incapable of conception due to defective equipment, there is obviously no capability of generating new life. The act isn’t capable, and it doesn’t matter what they do.

In the case of abc-couples, the act is still capable of generating new life. And that is just how it is.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Well, apparently, they weren’t completely infertile. Or maybe it’s just a story.

Of course it’s irrelevant whether or they conceive. However, if the act is incapable of conception due to defective equipment, there is obviously no capability of generating new life. The act isn’t capable, and it doesn’t matter what they do.

In the case of abc-couples, the act is still capable of generating new life. And that is just how it is.

It is clear you are still misunderstanding the teaching.
I’m not sure what else I can say… if you are color blind, I can’t describe the color red.

 

[PassingThru]

It is clear you are still misunderstanding the teaching.
I’m not sure what else I can say… if you are color blind, I can’t describe the color red.

Like I said, its a problem of words.

You are right, in that your only reference is that specifically taught to you by your church, therefor everything that falls outside that definition fails.

What you fail to see is how that reasoning leads to a complete inability to communicate a thought process outside this mindset. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to conform to your mindset in order to communicate a thought.

In this light, persuader is absolutely right. He is only wrong if you accept your premise, which is to already accept the outcome we are discussing to begin with. ie, agree with me, so that you will agree with me…

 

[Persuader]

It is clear you are still misunderstanding the teaching.
I’m not sure what else I can say… if you are color blind, I can’t describe the color red.

I do understand it. You say that the act should be done in a specific way. The problem is that the only clause you give to satisfy the requirements, is that it’s capable of generating new life. So, if I a sex act is done in a way that is capable of generating new life, it is done in a way that satisfies the requirements.

Obviously, you don’t think that is enough. You don’t think that the fundamental nature of the marriage act is retained simply by rendering the act capable of generating new life. But that is what your citation said. So, if that is not enough, as you clearly think, what is it then? It has to be something else that is the matter, what is it?

 

[PassingThru]

It is clear you are still misunderstanding the teaching.
I’m not sure what else I can say… if you are color blind, I can’t describe the color red.

Or, to put in another way, just say what you mean.

“A man must ejaculate inside the vagina with no chemicals or barriers present”

That is what you mean. And, as best I can gather, that is all you mean. All the other verbiage is just fluff.

Why not just say that, and ignore the rest? You seem to have a complete mental block to using words as defined by the dictionary, so skip it, and say what you mean.

Does my statement miss anything related to your point?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Like I said, its a problem of words.

You are right, in that your only reference is that specifically taught to you by your church, therefor everything that falls outside that definition fails.

What you fail to see is how that reasoning leads to a complete inability to communicate a thought process outside this mindset. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to conform to your mindset in order to communicate a thought.

In this light, persuader is absolutely right. He is only wrong if you accept your premise, which is to already accept the outcome we are discussing to begin with. ie, agree with me, so that you will agree with me…

No, there is clear logic involved, but I said it’s clear you aren’t seeing that.

I do understand it. You say that the act should be done in a specific way. The problem is that the only clause you give to satisfy the requirements, is that it’s capable of generating new life. So, if I a sex act is done in a way that is capable of generating new life, it is done in a way that satisfies the requirements.

Obviously, you don’t think that is enough. You don’t think that the fundamental nature of the marriage act is retained simply by rendering the act capable of generating new life. But that is what your citation said. So, if that is not enough, as you clearly think, what is it then? It has to be something else that is the matter, what is it?

The act of sex needs be completed in a certain FORM for it to be morally licit.
That FORM should be Faithful to God’s Design:

Faithfulness to God’s Design

1. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife.** If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. **But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)

 

[Em_in_FL]

Or, to put in another way, just say what you mean.

“A man must ejaculate inside the vagina with no chemicals or barriers present”

That is what you mean. And, as best I can gather, that is all you mean. All the other verbiage is just fluff.

Why not just say that, and ignore the rest? You seem to have a complete mental block to using words as defined by the dictionary, so skip it, and say what you mean.

Does my statement miss anything related to your point?

Nope.
I think the Church is just trying to be a bit more… eloquent… and tie in a bit of the spiritual aspect of the Sacramental nature of the act.
It’s much more beautiful than that.

 

[Persuader]

The act of sex needs be completed in a certain FORM for it to be morally licit.
That FORM should be Faithful to God’s Design:

If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

Ok, so the requirement is that the procreative capability of the sex act cannot be impaired. If it is impaired, it frustrates his design, and contradicts his will. As I have already stated in a previous post, why does it contradict his will? Apparently, he doesn’t become frustrated if you’re manipulating the sex acts to coincide with infertility (nfp). Only actions that either manipulate the physiology of the body or manipulate the flow of bodily fluids, are unacceptable. What we all want to know is where the CC gets this from. What is the basis for these claims?

 

[PassingThru]

Nope.
I think the Church is just trying to be a bit more… eloquent… and tie in a bit of the spiritual aspect of the Sacramental nature of the act.
It’s much more beautiful than that.

OK.

NFP is procreative. ABC is procreative. By definition.

You quoted:
*
Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.*

NFP partially deprives marital sex of its meaning and purpose, therefor, by your own words, it is in opposition to Gods will.

…

See, now, you can plainly see by MY definitions (any dictionary will do) that my first delcaration is correct, and you can do nothing to refute it.

And as you do not require anything other than your own logically unsupported definition to make further declarative statements, my second statement is also true.

Does this convince you? If not, why.

 

[ddarko]

DID YOU EVEN READ POST #199?

There are a lot of implications and misinterpretations on your part. Once again, I said no such thing. It is the Church, not me, that has an issue with married couples avoiding having children. If you disagree, you are not disagreeing with me, but rather the Church. The Church allow a married couple to (attempt to) avoid having children this to occur if certain conditions were met (financial hardship, etc.). My very simple question involved the Scriptural support for these exceptions.

Ok, first, before you attribute a position to the church, make sure you fully understand it. You unfortunately seem to be clueless.

Now you keep asking for Scriptural support. I keep repeating to you. You are looking for the wrong things. Scriptural support exists for Parental responsibility. Justification of NFP in those situations is simply a deductive conclusion of these teachings. It is also compliant with the sexual act since no sexual act takes place. It is also consistent with been open to Children because the spouses are actually open to children. They just can’t have any while being MORALLY RESPONSIBLE parents. GET IT?

Now you seem to not understand logic. And no, I am not resolving to ad hominem here but simply pointing out the truth. You seem to be under the impression that because teaching on NFP is not directly stated in scripture and its a deductive conclusion, it lacks any authority. That is logically invalid. The conclusions hold the same certainty as the axioms and premises used to make the conclusion in a deductive result.

This has nothing to do with the question I asked. I fail to see the connection between the Blessed Virgin Mary not having sex and how intentionally having sex during infertile times to avoid having children because of hardship are connected.

See your rash need to just reply to me has made you once again blind. The example of the Blessed mother simply shows that ‘‘not having sex’’ is justified. So in other words, there are morally justifiable reasons. So for someone like you to say that "Not having sex because you might have children is always MORALLY WRONG’’ is FALSE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Because the most holiest human being to have ever lived was sinless in doing so.

Once again this is a misrepresentation on your part. I don’t equate the two at all. The intent to not have children is what it is…it is the intent not to have children, which is viewed morally wrong, except under certain conditions. That is not my opinion…that is the opinion of the Church.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I NEED TO REPEAT MY SELF?

I told you EXACTLY what is meant by INTENTION. You seem to think pretty high of yourself and ironically think that you understand the church properly. Well, you obviously don’t or we won’t be having this conversation.

Maybe take a moment to think about that.

The second, subsequent issue deals with “the object” as another poster called it. If the “intent” is immoral, then there is no reason to discuss the object, except to determine if one situation is more immoral than another.

I honestly think you are missing obvious things and stuck on the most irrelevant things. Your object and all that stuff has to take the back seat to the fact that SEX is defined a certain way. NFP simply does not violate any of these rules because it is not sex. GET IT? I mean this is not Calculus or anything. This is straightforward stuff.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Is this your personal opinion, the opinion of a particular pope, Christ, inference from the Old Testament, etc.?

I should note that if this discussion were about, say, marriage, I would get Scriptural references ad naseum. Unfortunately, none regarding this issue.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

This is not personal opinion. This is how it is.

Ok get this in please.

You have a view that you THINK is the view of the church. That obviously is not working because you yourself are unable to explain how it is logically consistent.

I am presenting to you a different view of looking at the Church teachings which is 100% logically consistent.

Who do you think is right? If you still think its you, well GOOD LUCK!!!

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Ok, so the requirement is that the procreative capability of the sex act cannot be impaired. If it is impaired, it frustrates his design, and contradicts his will. As I have already stated in a previous post, why does it contradict his will? Apparently, he doesn’t become frustrated if you’re manipulating the sex acts to coincide with infertility (nfp). Only actions that either manipulate the physiology of the body or manipulate the flow of bodily fluids, are unacceptable. What we all want to know is where the CC gets this from. What is the basis for these claims?

Please understand this. I am TIRED of repeating this over and over again.

ABC’s are IMMORAL because they do not accept the spouse for who he/she is at the time of having SEX. GET IT?

So for some form of action to be considered immoral using the same criterion as above,

1. The couples must be having sex
2. The sexual expression according to Catholic teachings are violated

Alright?

So lets see if NFP fits the same bill. We have two situations.

a) Not having sex because the spouse is fertile

Does that violate the above criterion? NO. Why? Because (1) is not satisfied.

b) Having sex when the spouse is infertile

Does that violate the above criterion? NO. (1) is obviously satisfied. (2) is obviously satisfied because the spouse is completely accepted (as who he/she is at that moment) without holding anything back.

So neither (a) or (b) is sinful. ALRIGHT?

So you are comparing APPLES to ORANGES when you compare NFP’s with ABC’s.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Let me make it as clear as can be. You say that contraception violate the nature of the sexual act. I am asking you how it is a violation. You say it is a violation because it decreases likelihood of conception.

FALSE. I’ve told you MANY times now and you keep saying the same weird claim.

ABC’s are a violation because it DOES NOT accept the SPOUSE completely as HE/SHE is at the MOMENT of the SEXUAL act.

GET IT?

There are three things that are satisfied that make ABC’s sinful.

1. Sex is taking place
2. Spouse is fertile
3. Couple has decided to not share the fertile nature of themselves

Now if (1) above is missing in action, then there is no SIN involved. GET IT?

To say that (2) being satisfied and (1) not being there is SIN is ABSURD. IF the church said something like that, well, that’s as illogical as it can get.

Now your agenda to get your wife to agree with you is up to you. But to me, your intention is blinding you to seeing the simple logic above. Maybe try to just understand the above argument. Think of it as something other than sex if it helps.

God Bless

 

[PassingThru]

FALSE. I’ve told you MANY times now and you keep saying the same weird claim.

ABC’s are a violation because it DOES NOT accept the SPOUSE completely as HE/SHE is at the MOMENT of the SEXUAL act.

GET IT?

There are three things that are satisfied that make ABC’s sinful.

1. Sex is taking place
2. Spouse is fertile
3. Couple has decided to not share the fertile nature of themselves

Now if (1) above is missing in action, then there is no SIN involved. GET IT?

To say that (2) being satisfied and (1) not being there is SIN is ABSURD. IF the church said something like that, well, that’s as illogical as it can get.

Now your agenda to get your wife to agree with you is up to you. But to me, your intention is blinding you to seeing the simple logic above. Maybe try to just understand the above argument. Think of it as something other than sex if it helps.

God Bless

So, why is it OK to reject a spouse due to her fertility? The intention is to avoid children, of course. That is not the issue. Is it ever discussed how systematically rejecting one another and only accepting one another when fertility is not present ever mentioned? So far, it seems a bit arbitrary…?