Theological basis for NFP?

[Alyosha13]

Where can I get that pill that blocks the chemicals that make one go bald? My husband needs it.

Propecia. You’re welcome!

Seriously, except possibly for the hair. all the things you mention actually aid (not thwart) the purposes God intended for those physical parts of our body. Eg. God created the eye so that we could see – glasses aid our vision. Braces aid our legs in performing the purposes God had for creating them. etc.

Why do you reject God’s design of your body by cutting your hair?

It is as procreative as God made it to be. God made sexual union to be procreative only a few limited days of a cycle. In the natural way, sexual relations that occur on those days will probably result in a fertilized ovum. Sexual relations outside those fertile days will not result in a fertilized ovum. NFP does nothing to interfere with this design of God’s.

That’s not an answer to the question that I asked.

 

[Alyosha13]

Also hair is not alive anymore, it isn’t an organ. Hair is made up of dead cells.

So the theology only applies to living organs? Why?

It sounds like this is being made up as we go along.

 

[Nita]

NFP is abstaining from sexual union? I thought NFP involved sexual union while the woman is infertile, denying the procreative aspect of sex. Perhaps you mistyped? Can you clarify?

I presume you’re deliberately faking dilemma for the sake of effect. We both know what NFP is/involves. It involves abstinence during fertile periods.
It also involves being open to accept new life even if it occurs while practicing NFP. (By practicing NFP I mean abstaining from sexual union during those days when the woman is considered to be fertile.)

So if it’s a matter of attitude, why is it not also possible to have the same open attitude while using artificial birth control?

It is possible, as I’ve said before. In that case it is not their attitude (or reason for avoiding pregnancy) that is at fault. It is the “method” used to achieve that end that is immoral.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

So the theology only applies to living organs? Why?

It sounds like this is being made up as we go along.

I believe you are the one who mentioned hair to begin with. Hair is dead, cutting it does not change or mutilate the person like, for example, a vasectomy would.

 

[Alyosha13]

Because we have not taken action to deliberately block one of the purposes of human sexuality. ABC does. God is the author of the female cycle. Having sex during these periods does nothing (on our part) to subvert.

1. Why is deliberately blocking this purpose a sin? There still have not been a theological reasoning put for to explain this position.
2. Having sex only during infertile cycles subverts the procreative aspect of the marriage bond. True or false?

Just as God creates the fertile periods, he creates the unfertile periods. In either case engaging in sex in either of these times, we have not taken steps to prevent pregnancy outside of God’s design.

So the sin is not in preventing pregnancy (i.e. denying the procreative aspect of the marriage bond), but in denying this aspect of sex outside of God’s natural design? WHY? What about that makes it a sin? Is the sin denying the procreative aspect of the marriage bond, or only doing so at artificially induced times?

No, you are wrong. Our bodies function as they may. We have taken no direct action to prevent life just because we are not ovulating. We are merely working within the patterns of our bodily functions. Using ABC is a direct refusal to allow God in.

That logic doesn’t stand. Only having sex when the woman is infertile is a different way of not letting God in. The refusal to allow him in, according to your logic, is not the sin, but rather the way you are telling him 'no".

I mentioned in my last post that one should only use NFP for serious reasons. It should not be used as a birth control method for selfish designs. But, responsible parents do face times of medical or financial difficulties. After prayerful consideration, NFP could be used for a time.

All of that is subjective, and does not explain why using artificial birth control for the same grave and serious reasons is sinful.

Inviting God to share in one’s life is hardly hyperbole. Scripture is filled with examples of God sharing life with his creatures and vice versa.

It is hyperbole in that it does not answer the question that was specifically asked. Nobody is questioning whether or not “inviting God to share in one’s life” is good or bad, only in whether framing the discussion as such is valid. I submit that denying the procreative aspect of sex by only having it during infertile times is similarly “not inviting God in.” That’s your logic, not mine.

All I am saying is that if there is good reason for delaying a pregnancy, timing the marital embrace to coincide with certain periods of the cycle is working with God’s design, not deliberately blocking God’s participation.

I realize you are saying it, but it is contradictory. If artificial birth control is bad because it is rejecting God’s participation in the procreative aspect of sex, then so is only having sex when the woman is naturally infertile. On both occaisons, the answer to God’s participation is a resounding “no”. To suggest otherwise is to contract your own statements.

While I understand your desire to ask questions, I would encourage you to prayerfully reread the responses. Stubborness can be an act of arrogance. There is a great wisdom in the Church as she is guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps you would do well to humbly reflect on what you have been provided. Really, its not all hyperbole…

I’m not sure if you are calling me stubborn and arrogant directly, or only indirectly implying it by suggesting that if I don’t agree with you, I should be careful that I am not one or the other. In either case, it’s not helpful.

I am not so sure…Really, I think most folks think its not a God given miracle, rather a direct result of their own actions.

What you think most folks think doesn’t give credence to any position, however.

You arre welcome, but it was more than just an attempt. I answered your question as others have. The fact that you are unwilling to listen does not mean that your question has not been answered…

Attacking me personally because I have further questions or objections to your answer is not helpful.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I presume you’re deliberately faking dilemma for the sake of effect. We both know what NFP is/involves. It involves abstinence during fertile periods.
It also involves being open to accept new life even if it occurs while practicing NFP. (By practicing NFP I mean abstaining from sexual union during those days when the woman is considered to be fertile.)

It is possible, as I’ve said before. In that case it is not their attitude (or reason for avoiding pregnancy) that is at fault. It is the “method” used to achieve that end that is immoral.

Yes, a couple can have the most selfish reasons to avoid a child. (for arguments sake) if they abstain when the wife is fertile, they still not have commited the sin of contraception.

They might be guilty of other sins, not contraception though.

 

[Nita]

What you have given is a hypothesis with no actual scientific proof.

Thy hypothesis does not take into account people who are infertile, yet bond, people who work shift work and see their spouses infrequently, yet bond, or couples who marry later in life, yet bond.
.

So true Mary Gail. The deep bonding that takes place between married people has far more to do with being there and supporting each other through the years; raising a family; sharing joys, sorrows, values; etc.

(I think any hormones produced are probably pretty temporary anyway! Short term bonding???)

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

SIXTH COMMANDMENT
“You shall not commit adultery.” (Ex 20:14) “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” (Ex 20:17)

Note: In the area of deliberate sexual sins listed below, all are mortal sins if there is sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. “No fornicators, idolaters, or adulterers, no sodomites,… will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10) “Anyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his thoughts.” (Mt 5:28)

Did I willfully entertain impure thoughts or desires?
Did I use impure or suggestive words? Tell impure stories? Listen to them?
Did I deliberately look at impure TV, videos, plays, pictures or movies? Or deliberately read impure materials?
Did I commit impure acts by myself (masturbation)?
Did I commit impure acts with another - fornication (premarital sex), adultery (sex with a married person)?
Did I practice artificial birth control (by pills, device, withdrawal)?
Did I marry or advise anyone to marry outside the Church?
Did I avoid the occasions of impurity?
Did I try to control my thoughts?
Did I engage in homosexual activity?
Did I respect all members of the opposite sex, or have I thought of other people as objects?
Did I or my spouse have sterilization done?
Did I abuse my marriage rights?

scborromeo.org/confess.htm

 

[Nita]

Yes, a couple can have the most selfish reasons to avoid a child. (for arguments sake) if they abstain when the wife is fertile, they still not have commited the sin of contraception.

They might be guilty of other sins, not contraception though.

I do not have the reference for it, but I recall Pope John Paul II warning about practicing NFP with a “contraceptive mentality”.

 

[Alyosha13]

I presume you’re deliberately faking dilemma for the sake of effect. We both know what NFP is/involves. It involves abstinence during fertile periods.
It also involves being open to accept new life even if it occurs while practicing NFP. (By practicing NFP I mean abstaining from sexual union during those days when the woman is considered to be fertile.)

Not at all faking anything. Your formula was:

No. If you go back to the 2 factors involved, you will see that NFP is not immoral when done for a serious/just reason.

1. reason
   If done for a just reason, avoiding pregnancy is moral.
2. method
   Abstaining from sexual union is moral. (Nothing is done to interfere with or change the natural reproductive system of our bodies.)
   Therefore, when properly practiced NFP is moral – the reason for practicing it is moral and the method used is moral

You based this only on “abstention is moral.” You did not include when there is not abstention, the morality of which, according to your logic, I am questioning.

I don’t question whether abstention is moral, but rather I question the morality of limiting sex to infertile cycles, when the procreative aspect of the bond is denied. If, as you claim, this procreative bond is essential, how can only having sex when it is unavailable not a sin?

It is possible, as I’ve said before. In that case it is not their attitude (or reason for avoiding pregnancy) that is at fault. It is the “method” used to achieve that end that is immoral.

But it was exactly the attitude that you were submitting as evidence for your position:

With NFP the intent is not to get pregnant, yet the proper attitude is still to be open to accepting the child if it turns out that the wife does get pregnant.

So, which is it?

 

[Alyosha13]

I believe you are the one who mentioned hair to begin with. Hair is dead, cutting it does not change or mutilate the person like, for example, a vasectomy would.

Well, this is a distinction that you are making. There is no theological distinction that has been demonstrated.

If you need a different example, however, consider using propecia to change your body’s living organs and chemistry for the purpose of keeping living hair follicles intact that would otherwise naturally die, as God’s design for our bodies intends. Is that a sin?

 

[Alyosha13]

Yes, a couple can have the most selfish reasons to avoid a child. (for arguments sake) if they abstain when the wife is fertile, they still not have commited the sin of contraception.

They might be guilty of other sins, not contraception though.

But I thought the sin of contraception, regardless of motivation, was in denying the procreative aspect of sex, and telling God “no” and not inviting him to participate in the unitive aspect of the marriage bond.

That’s what has been stated over and over in the thread.

Am I missing something?

 

[Alyosha13]

scborromeo.org/confess.htm

This is a website of a church. Is that proof of something?

 

[cargau]

1. Why is deliberately blocking this purpose a sin? There still have not been a theological reasoning put for to explain this position.
2. Having sex only during infertile cycles subverts the procreative aspect of the marriage bond. True or false?

So the sin is not in preventing pregnancy (i.e. denying the procreative aspect of the marriage bond), but in denying this aspect of sex outside of God’s natural design? WHY? What about that makes it a sin? Is the sin denying the procreative aspect of the marriage bond, or only doing so at artificially induced times?

That logic doesn’t stand. Only having sex when the woman is infertile is a different way of not letting God in. The refusal to allow him in, according to your logic, is not the sin, but rather the way you are telling him 'no".

All of that is subjective, and does not explain why using artificial birth control for the same grave and serious reasons is sinful.

It is hyperbole in that it does not answer the question that was specifically asked. Nobody is questioning whether or not “inviting God to share in one’s life” is good or bad, only in whether framing the discussion as such is valid. I submit that denying the procreative aspect of sex by only having it during infertile times is similarly “not inviting God in.” That’s your logic, not mine.

I realize you are saying it, but it is contradictory. If artificial birth control is bad because it is rejecting God’s participation in the procreative aspect of sex, then so is only having sex when the woman is naturally infertile. On both occaisons, the answer to God’s participation is a resounding “no”. To suggest otherwise is to contract your own statements.

I’m not sure if you are calling me stubborn and arrogant directly, or only indirectly implying it by suggesting that if I don’t agree with you, I should be careful that I am not one or the other. In either case, it’s not helpful.

What you think most folks think doesn’t give credence to any position, however.

Attacking me personally because I have further questions or objections to your answer is not helpful.

First of all, I am calling you stubborn…no implication. You keep asking the same questions over and over in spite of the fact that the answers are provided. I suspect they are answers that you don’t want to hear. You may feel that these comments are not helpful but they are true nonetheless. If you are sincere in your effort to learn, then go back and reread the responses. The theological reasons are all laid out for you…

Having sex during infertile periods subverts nothing. God made us as he made us. No action to deliberately push God out.

There is nothing artificial about a woman’s cycle. It is real, every minute of it.

Hyperbole because question not asked…No but it is very much a part of the theological response. Again, not hyperbole.

Our invitation extends to God at all times ovulation or otherwise. ABC is a direct action to say no. Why is that so hard?

Finally, you asked for a theological purpose for the church’s teaching on artificial contraception. You got it. You may not like it but its there and there is nothing to disagree with. It is what it is. I am happy to take the time to explain, but I’m not in the mood to argue with you because the teaching may not meet your approval. That, my friend is between you and God. My advice is for you to take it to prayer…

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

But I thought the sin of contraception, regardless of motivation, was in denying the procreative aspect of sex, and telling God “no” and not inviting him to participate in the unitive aspect of the marriage bond.

That’s what has been stated over and over in the thread.

Am I missing something?

Perhaps that contraception means to use a device or chemical to render the act infertile?

 

[Nita]

Not at all faking anything. Your formula was:

No. If you go back to the 2

Please, go to the very first line in my post that you quoted. I made the pertinent part so big and bold you can’t miss it. The premise about NFP made there is assumed with both the subsequent factors – 1) reason and 2) method.

Thus, abstention for just/serious reasons is moral.
If someone were to abstain for unjust reasons, their reasons would be immoral and it could be there would be sin involved – eg. selfishness; failing in marital responsibility; ???
But, they would not be guilty of having sexual union while altering the physical aspects of their human nature involved in reproduction.

And at this point, I think I will bow out because it seems I have to keep explaining the same things over and over again. I take the blame for that; apparently I am unable to explain my position in an understandable way. My apologies.
Keep reading HV. It’s marvelous.
Try reading Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) - “Love and Responsibility”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/ZBODTRUT.HTM

1. But how does natural family planning differ from contraception? And why bother, if their objective is the same? To understand the difference, one must realize that having a right intention for an action does not always justify the means.

For example, two separate couples want to support their families. The first couple does it through legitimate employment, while the other couple does it by trafficking in illegal drugs. Or two persons want to lose weight. The first accomplishes the objective by adhering to a strict diet, while the other person grossly overeats and then induces vomiting. Or to return to our analogy of the language of the body: To say that NFP is no different from contraception is like saying that maintaining silence is the equivalent of telling a lie.

Paul VI expressed the same idea more poetically: "To experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not master of the sources of life, but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator."14

 

[Alyosha13]

At this point, I have had endless conversations about nfp with my wife, her priest etc. It seems to me you need to put your trust in the CC to accept this. At least for me, I cannot make sense of it…

Well put.

 

[Nita]

These are kind of my views in well, a nutshell. (And my wife’s as well). We have been married 22 years. Have two beautiful children, and yes, gasp, have used contraception. Barrier and withdrawal only, as we don’t think anything chemical has any business being anywhere near this stuff, but I digress.

I’ve read. Read some more, and then re-read everything I can on this subject. My mind always comes back to not being able to determine any difference whatsoever between NFP and barrier methods. I’m sorry. I’d be willing to be that 90+% of the folks waving the NFP flag, and telling me I’m sinning by using a condom, are using NFP solely as a contraceptive. Not that I think there is anything wrong with that, I don’t, and I don’t believe that a married couple, that has been open to life, has had children and is raising a family, is going to be condemned by God for using a barrier method type of ABC.

This is going to sound harsh, but I also believe that Christians, yes, even the leaders, over the years, have had some serious sexual issues of their own. I also believe they laid down some laws a very long time ago, that helped them deal with their own sexual frustrations. I love the Church. I follow her teachings as best I can, but this is one thing that simply does not make any sense at all.

I have also spent some serious time in prayer over this. As in years. I have asked God, on numerous occasions, to move me down the correct path. I truly, truly believe he has, and that he’s OK with what I am doing. No, I’m not disillusioning myself, but my reasons for this would probably fill a whole thread, so I’ll leave it at that, LOL.

God bless all, and again, hoping I’m not coming across in the wrong way. Just wanted to state an opinion, and my feelings.

I also spent many critical (child bearing) years following the same line of reasoning – rejecting the soundness of the Church’s position on contraception. I’d probably still be there had God not graced me with a major step in my spiritual life.
Namely, I accepted completely the teaching on infallibility.
Really thought about it and believed it; believed that God looks over and controls what His Church teaches His followers, ensures that it is the truth.
I believed this because I know the Catholic Church is His Church; He promised that what it bound on earth would be bound in heaven. I knew that truth is so important to God that Jesus could say “I am … the truth…” - He would never have His Church uphold a lie as binding. And above all, God loves me/us so much that He only decrees what is good and best for us.

The understanding started.

 

[Alyosha13]

First of all, I am calling you stubborn…no implication. You keep asking the same questions over and over in spite of the fact that the answers are provided. I suspect they are answers that you don’t want to hear. You may feel that these comments are not helpful but they are true nonetheless. If you are sincere in your effort to learn, then go back and reread the responses. The theological reasons are all laid out for you…

The problem is not that I do not want to hear the answers provided, the problem is that they don’t make sense.

Having sex during infertile periods subverts nothing. God made us as he made us. No action to deliberately push God out.

So you are in disagreement with the teachings of HV which state that sex in marriage must be both procreative and unitive?

Our invitation extends to God at all times ovulation or otherwise. ABC is a direct action to say no. Why is that so hard?

Because it is not logical reasoning. Why can’t an “invitation” be extended to God just like it supposedly is when you only choose to have sex during naturally infertile periods as it would be extended during artificially induced infertile periods? The logic applies equally to both - it’s a subjective hypothetical about the mind or intentions of the couple which can be applied in either case equally.

Finally, you asked for a theological purpose for the church’s teaching on artificial contraception. You got it. You may not like it but its there and there is nothing to disagree with. It is what it is. I am happy to take the time to explain, but I’m not in the mood to argue with you because the teaching may not meet your approval. That, my friend is between you and God. My advice is for you to take it to prayer…

The answer as you have presented it is self-contradictory, no amount of prayer will change that.