Theological basis for NFP?

[Persuader]

Nope.

This is your first mistake and many others. There is NO REJECTION involved in NOT having sex.

Complete giving of each other in the sense of fertility and all only apply to when one is having sex. So to speak of rejection of fertility of a spouse outside of sex is rather meaningless.

Then we only speak of the intention as I explained in post #199.

God Bless

If someone asks you if you want to have sex, and you say no, that is a rejection. If the reason for the rejection is that she is fertile, you reject the fertility of the person as well. You are not interested in having sex with her because she is fertile. That means you reject her fertility. You say: “no, I don’t want any part of that fertile business.”

As an analogy, imagine someone asks you if you want to touch them (I presume you are male). You say no, and she asks why. Your answer: I don’t like women with tattoos. What are you rejecting here? You are rejecting to touch her, and you are rejecting her tattoos. Just like you are rejecting to have sex, and rejecting her fertility if you practice nfp.

 

[Em_in_FL]

What do you mean at the time of having sex? You say that the form of an action is to be considered immoral if 1) it coincides with the couple having sex? Contraceptive actions can be taken years before the couple is having sex, so I’m not sure how your first clause applies.

Let’s compare nfp to Implanon, for instance. Implanon is effective for 3 years. So if the female is using Implanon, she could have taken an action 2 years ago to manipulate her body such that any subsequent sex act would have a decreased chance of procreation. In the case of nfp, she is taking several actions every day to manipulate the timing of her subsequent sex acts in order to decrease the chance of procreation. It is very far from obvious why the methodic difference matters, and it certainly cannot be resolved by saying that the contraceptive act has to be performed in conjunction with the sex act. However, it is possible that you mean something else by your first premise.

That makes no sense.
I’ll rephrase… Is the contraceptive affecting the woman at that moment?
Not to mention Implanon is an abortifacient.

 

[ddarko]

See my post above.

I was being sarcastic as that is how you sound when you repeatedly quote something without any explanation. It doesnt help.

I am not defining my own morality, thanks. I am asking for a logical reasoning that does not rely on a circular reference upon itself. Hence my snarky remarks.

There is a difference in circular reference and using Catholic axioms and premises. I hope you know the difference.

You have a question with premises. This is not the right thread for you. The question here is already assuming the Roman Catholic theological framework.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

If someone asks you if you want to have sex, and you say no, that is a rejection. If the reason for the rejection is that she is fertile, you reject the fertility of the person as well. You are not interested in having sex with her because she is fertile. That means you reject her fertility. You say: “no, I don’t want any part of that fertile business.”

As an analogy, imagine someone asks you if you want to touch them (I presume you are male). You say no, and she asks why. Your answer: I don’t like women with tattoos. What are you rejecting here? You are rejecting to touch her, and you are rejecting her tattoos. Just like you are rejecting to have sex, and rejecting her fertility if you practice nfp.

Ok, you are totally off.

NFP is practiced with mutual agreement. You are creating a false dilemma.

God Bless

 

[Em_in_FL]

If someone asks you if you want to have sex, and you say no, that is a rejection. If the reason for the rejection is that she is fertile, you reject the fertility of the person as well. You are not interested in having sex with her because she is fertile. That means you reject her fertility. You say: “no, I don’t want any part of that fertile business.”

As an analogy, imagine someone asks you if you want to touch them (I presume you are male). You say no, and she asks why. Your answer: I don’t like women with tattoos. What are you rejecting here? You are rejecting to touch her, and you are rejecting her tattoos. Just like you are rejecting to have sex, and rejecting her fertility if you practice nfp.

NFP requires these “reasons” for avoiding sex in the first place to be just/serious/well-grounded. If there is no communication or agreement on this decision it’s a MARRIAGE issue, not an NFP issue. It’s not the woman’s fault she’s fertile - it’s the way GOD designed her. So by that logic, you’re rejecting GOD as well.

 

[Em_in_FL]

ok, you are totally off.

Nfp is practiced with mutual agreement. You are creating a false dilemma.

God bless

yes yes yes!

 

[Good_Daughter]

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.

1: A married couple using ABC may still leave a physical pathway open for the union of male and female seed, but only by accident. They’d close it if they could. A couple using NFP as birth control leave that pathway open intentionally.

2: This verse illustrates God’s design for married couples. When a couple clings, the closeness of intercourse is implied. What do you think it means for the couple to become one body in a physical sense? I see contraception as keeping couples from the one flesh union. Barriers do this almost visibly, chemicals and surgery through physical manipulation.

3: I’m talking about physical form, specifically, the physical pathway for the union of male and female seed that couples keep open during sex when they’re not contracepting and try to close when contracepting. Does that substantiate my claim?

A couple other questions: Catholicism requires that married couples keep sex procreative (not just somewhat procreative). How does a couple intentionally take part in a procreative act? Do they have sex when they think they will conceive? If they don’t conceive was that sex not really procreative after all? Wouldn’t that violate the teaching?

 

[Persuader]

Implanon applies while having sex. So if you took one 3 years ago, it is still in effect when you have sex today. That means it is effective while you have sex today.

So it is ONLY when you have sex that we are talking about ABC’s.

In the case of NFP, no sex is involved. The Church nor Scripture nor Tradition nor Philosophy tells a Couple WHEN to have sex. The couple has FREE WILL to have sex whenever they like as long as it is within marriage. So practicing NFP violates nothing (if the intention is moral).

God Bless

Yes, the effects of the contraceptive action affects your sexual acts such that every subsequent sexual act has a decreased chance of procreation. Similarly, the effects of the actions of fertility awareness affects your sexual acts such that every subsequent sexual act has decreased chance of procreation.

You can say that it is something inherently wrong with some types of manipulation over others, but to claim that nfp is no rejection at all or no manipulation at all, is false. If you are going to single out some types of rejections and some types of manipulations, you reasoning needs to be able to 1) not affect nfp and 2) tell us what is wrong. Who is wronged or harmed, and why are they wronged or harmed?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Yes, the effects of the contraceptive action affects your sexual acts such that every subsequent sexual act has a decreased chance of procreation. Similarly, the effects of the actions of fertility awareness affects your sexual acts such that every subsequent sexual act has decreased chance of procreation.

You can say that it is something inherently wrong with some types of manipulation over others, but to claim that nfp is no rejection at all or no manipulation at all, is false. If you are going to single out some types of rejections and some types of manipulations, you reasoning needs to be able to 1) not affect nfp and 2) tell us what is wrong. Who is wronged or harmed, and why are they wronged or harmed?

Nope… many people use NFP in order to try to achieve conception. It’s just information. Couples can communicate on a daily basis - TODAY, RIGHT NOW, Are we ready for another child? Yes - good to go! No, we’re not ready - we have these just reasons to avoid a child. We will respect God’s creation and wait until His creation allows us the opportunity to be united without thwarting His design.

NFP doesn’t “reject” anything… not if used with healthy marital communication.
Contraception wrongs God because it purposefully thwarts His “good” design… something that is completely unnecessary because His design allows for responsible parenthood in the first place.

 

[Persuader]

That makes no sense.
I’ll rephrase… Is the contraceptive affecting the woman at that moment?
Not to mention Implanon is an abortifacient.

Yes, it is affecting the sex acts of the woman. In the case of nfp, it is affecting her sex acts by manipulating timing parameters. You may single out contraception, but you cannot say that hormonal contraception affects her sexual acts whereas nfp doesn’t. They both do, but in different ways.

PS: It is not established that Implanon is abortifacient.

 

[Persuader]

Ok, you are totally off.

NFP is practiced with mutual agreement. You are creating a false dilemma.

God Bless

So if abc is practiced with mutual agreement, there is no problem. Think about it. You are not having sex with her for a reason, it doesn’t matter if she agrees.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Yes, it is affecting the sex acts of the woman. In the case of nfp, it is affecting her sex acts by manipulating timing parameters. You may single out contraception, but you cannot say that hormonal contraception affects her sexual acts whereas nfp doesn’t. They both do, but in different ways.

PS: It is not established that Implanon is abortifacient.

Oh “not established” gives me a warm and fuzzy. Hopefully they won’t “establish” that sometime in the 3 years it’s effective.

WHY and HOW is NFP affecting the sex acts of the woman?
I’ve never experienced that in the least. When I’m fertile we examine our reasonings for wanting to avoid conception. If they’re serious/just/well-formed… it’s not even a question. I’m not an animal that goes into heat. Plus, I make up for any “lost time” pretty quickly.

 

[Em_in_FL]

So if abc is practiced with mutual agreement, there is no problem. Think about it. You are not having sex with her for a reason, it doesn’t matter if she agrees.

Wait… what do you mean “it doesn’t matter if she agrees”???

 

[Persuader]

1: A married couple using ABC may still leave a physical pathway open for the union of male and female seed, but only by accident. They’d close it if they could. A couple using NFP as birth control leave that pathway open intentionally.

2: This verse illustrates God’s design for married couples. When a couple clings, the closeness of intercourse is implied. What do you think it means for the couple to become one body in a physical sense? I see contraception as keeping couples from the one flesh union. Barriers do this almost visibly, chemicals and surgery through physical manipulation.

3: I’m talking about physical form, specifically, the physical pathway for the union of male and female seed that couples keep open during sex when they’re not contracepting and try to close when contracepting. Does that substantiate my claim?

A couple other questions: Catholicism requires that married couples keep sex procreative (not just somewhat procreative). How does a couple intentionally take part in a procreative act? Do they have sex when they think they will conceive? If they don’t conceive was that sex not really procreative after all? Wouldn’t that violate the teaching?

1. I don’t think you want to go this route. You are now speaking of intentions, and they can be equal between abc and nfp. Think about it.
2. Well, let’s examine what you claim. For instance, you say that as long as they touch each others flesh, they would be one. if you’re not using a condom, you may well be touching each others flesh in every physical way. So, that is covered. Hormonal contraception doesn’t result in flesh not touching.

3: Well, of course I understand that the physical form is what you care about, but when asked why you care about the physical form, you seem to refer to points that is equally problematic for nfp. That is the issue.

If a Catholic couple wants to keep sex procreative, they shouldn’t be planning their sexual acts to escape procreation. It doesn’t make sense to intentionally avoid sex when you think you cannot conceive. Especially when it is part of a elaborate program. Clearly, you don’t want sex to be procreative at that point. You’re not interested in procreation at that point.

 

[Good_Daughter]

If someone asks you if you want to have sex, and you say no, that is a rejection.

Real-life NFP doesn’t work that way.

If my husband were to ask me if I wanted to have sex, the answer would generally be, “yes”. When we’re avoiding pregnancy, his question is, “are you fertile”? If my answer is yes, he doesn’t reject me, we sacrifice sex for that day. We don’t always sacrifice happily, but it helps to keep in mind that Jesus elevated sacrifice as the greatest love of all.

 

[Em_in_FL]

If a Catholic couple wants to keep sex procreative, they shouldn’t be planning their sexual acts to escape procreation. It doesn’t make sense to intentionally avoid sex when you think you cannot conceive. Especially when it is part of a elaborate program. Clearly, you don’t want sex to be procreative at that point. You’re not interested in procreation at that point.

Let’s avoid using words (like procreation) where definitions aren’t agreeable…

If a Catholic couple wants to avoid conception it is certainly within their moral means to make a choice whether or not to have relations on any given day. If they can decide to avoid having relations for health, then where does the logic change for conception?

It’s HARDLY an “elaborate program”…

 

[Persuader]

Wait… what do you mean “it doesn’t matter if she agrees”???

The claim seems to be that you are not rejecting a woman or her fertility if she agrees with the rejection.Clearly, that is irrelevant. The reason for your rejection still lies in the fact that you are not interested in her because she is fertile. You keep away from the marital embrace because she is fertile. You keep away from her fertility, you don’t like it. She happens to agree with you, so what? It might make her an accomplice in rejecting her own fertility since she is not interested in it either.

 

[Em_in_FL]

The claim seems to be that you are not rejecting a woman or her fertility if she agrees with the rejection.Clearly, that is irrelevant. The reason for your rejection still lies in the fact that you are not interested in her because she is fertile. You keep away from the marital embrace because she is fertile. You keep away from her fertility, you don’t like it. She happens to agree with you, so what? It might make her an accomplice in rejecting her own fertility since she is not interested in it either.

“Not interested in her” implies insult or hurtful feelings.
If she truly agrees with the just/serious reasons, then the entire idea of “not interested in her” doesn’t make sense. Actually, if she truly agrees with the just/serious reasons, then abstaining is actually charitable to her needs and shows GREAT “interest” in her.

 

[mellestad]

It isn’t because God “said so”… more like it’s because it’s an INSULT to the very CREATOR of that very Sacramental act in the first place. He created it perfectly and saw that His creation was “good”. Instead, contraception consider this design “bad” and something to “work against”… something that needs to be fixed. But why fix something that isn’t broken.

Right, but the fact that it is an ‘insult’ is just God’s opinion, right?

I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, I’m just trying to pin down if you are saying there is a logical distinction between ABC and NFP or if it is just that God happens to ‘feel’ a particular way about the two things, and that is the only reason.

 

[Persuader]

Oh “not established” gives me a warm and fuzzy. Hopefully they won’t “establish” that sometime in the 3 years it’s effective.

WHY and HOW is NFP affecting the sex acts of the woman?
I’ve never experienced that in the least. When I’m fertile we examine our reasonings for wanting to avoid conception. If they’re serious/just/well-formed… it’s not even a question. I’m not an animal that goes into heat. Plus, I make up for any “lost time” pretty quickly.

NFP affects the sex acts by taking elaborate and planned action to make sure that they only take place when she is infertile. To seriously claim that this doesn’t affect her sex acts, would be the same as saying that my training regimen would not be affected by elaborate and planned action.