Theological basis for NFP?

[davidv]

As I was laying in bed on Saturday, I had something of an epiphany about this issue (yes, there is something wrong with my brain).

I think I’ve found an explanation that ties everything up neatly, and allows what you seem to be telling me to make sense, in a way.

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.

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.

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.”

If you think “sex is a ritual” is the basis for the Catholic teaching, I don’t think you understood much of the teaching that has been presented.

 

[Rico_S]

The intent as it relates to a desire for pregnancy is not what is at issue here. Welcoming God’s free participation in to the act without deliberately using **artificial means **to deny God that freedom, is.

But it is acceptable to use natural means to deny God that freedom, right?

 

[mellestad]

The intent as it relates to a desire for pregnancy is not what is at issue here. Welcoming God’s free participation in to the act without deliberately using artificial means to deny God that freedom, is. Of course, God is God, he can do anything including defeating the useful function of a condom. That is not the point. What is important is the participants willingness to embrace or deny God’s participation. That is an act of the will…to trust and love God.

Having sex during infertile times and avoiding sex during fertile times does nothing to subvert God’s participation outside of His divine design.

So, when you think of the word “intent”, don’t think of it in terms of intent to get pregnant or not. Rather think of “intent” as allowing God to participate, or not.

Oh, and he is not my god, or your god, he is God to everyone…yes, even you )

How is sex during an infertile period different though? Specifically? I could possibly accept that argument with the assumption that the couples in question are ignorant of biology. If they understand how conception works though, they are subverting God just as much as contraception. Possibly more so, since careful NFP is going to be more reliable than contraceptive usage.​

I say your God to differentiate between the Catholic version of God and all the other religious versions of God. In this discussion I feel it is appropriate, since not all religions would argue their version of God(s) have anything to do with procreation or sex.

 

[mellestad]

If you think “sex is a ritual” is the basis for the Catholic teaching, I don’t think you understood much of the teaching that has been presented.

I’m just going on the information in this thread. If that is not Catholic doctrine, you probably want to talk to the Catholics, not me.

Clearly, there has been a mystical, supernatural, divine, ritualistic, magical, etc. element brought forth. If the word ritual is insulting to you, I can use something else, but to me it is the clearest and least charged term I can think of.

**Edit: I would also clarify that I don’t think sex in general would be considered a ritual, rather ‘proper’ sex contains a ritual/magical element. The mere fact that God is involved in one instance and not involved in another, to me, says it is a ritual. What else would you call it? Or is God not involved?

 

[davidv]

I’m just going on the information in this thread. If that is not Catholic doctrine, you probably want to talk to the Catholics, not me.

Clearly, there has been a mystical, supernatural, divine, ritualistic, magical, etc. element brought forth. If the word ritual is insulting to you, I can use something else, but to me it is the clearest and least charged term I can think of.

**Edit: I would also clarify that I don’t think sex in general would be considered a ritual, rather ‘proper’ sex contains a ritual/magical element. The mere fact that God is involved in one instance and not involved in another, to me, says it is a ritual. What else would you call it? Or is God not involved?

Please reread post #2. Please tell me what in that post leads you to believe that we speaking of a “ritual”. It may also help if you explain what you mean by “ritual”.

 

[cargau]

But it is acceptable to use natural means to deny God that freedom, right?

The fact is you are not denying God anything. That is the point. You are using the natural rythms of God’s own creation to space children. Again, God has not been shut out. He has not been denied. ABC is deliberate refusal to allow God in.

 

[cargau]

How is sex during an infertile period different though? Specifically? I could possibly accept that argument with the assumption that the couples in question are ignorant of biology. If they understand how conception works though, they are subverting God just as much as contraception. Possibly more so, since careful NFP is going to be more reliable than contraceptive usage.​

I say your God to differentiate between the Catholic version of God and all the other religious versions of God. In this discussion I feel it is appropriate, since not all religions would argue their version of God(s) have anything to do with procreation or sex.

You are still assessing the “subversion” as it relates to the intent to acheive pregnancy. That is really not what we are discussing. The purpose of NFP is to delay pregnancy or for the couple to acheive pregnancy using the God designed patterns of the female anatomy.

Think of this in terms of the couple’s intent to embrace God’s participation. Since there is no barrier beyond what God, himself has allowed, the couple does nothing on their own part to separate God from the marital act.

 

[mellestad]

Please reread post #2. Please tell me what in that post leads you to believe that we speaking of a “ritual”. It may also help if you explain what you mean by “ritual”.

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

The act has meaning in a supernatural sense. That meaning can be broken in a supernatural sense by a change in the way the act is performed. Replace the word act with ritual and everything is the same.

I use the word ritual because to me ‘act’ has no supernatural overtones. Ritual clarifies that for me without seeming to distort meaning. One of the above (Catholic) posters used the word Sacrament, which means, “A rite in which God is uniquely active.” A rite is a ritual.

 

[mellestad]

You are still assessing the “subversion” as it relates to the intent to acheive pregnancy. That is really not what we are discussing. The purpose of NFP is to delay pregnancy or for the couple to acheive pregnancy using the God designed patterns of the female anatomy.

Think of this in terms of the couple’s intent to embrace God’s participation. Since there is no barrier beyond what God, himself has allowed, the couple does nothing on their own part to separate God from the marital act.

Why is ABC “subversion” but NFP is “not subversion”? In both cases, the couples rely on God interceding with a miracle that bypasses physical laws to achieve pregnancy.

Why does a married couple engage in NFP? Why does a married couple use ABC?

One couple is using the knowledge that sperm cannot penetrate a barrier to avoid pregnancy. The other couple is using the knowledge that a women cannot become pregnant if an egg is not ready to be fertilized to avoid pregnancy.

You’re telling me that one application of knowledge is blessed, and the other is a sin. Why?

I’m not sure how you can separate the idea of intent for pregnancy from the issue, because without that intent there is no issue to begin with.

 

[vsedriver]

None of this logic makes any sense. Unless you have never cut your hair, worn braces, put on glasses, etc etc. Others take pills that block chemicals which would normally make them go bald. Is that a sin? People change the unfettered function of their bodies multiple times a day. Is that “telling God His design is not good enough”? Of course not.

All of the above come under the idea of fixing something that is broken. Even cutting hair is a means to improve looks or to make one safer etc. There is nothing wrong with taking medicine to fix something that is broken.

So, that’s the only reason? It has nothing to do with whether the sex is procreative, unitive, or both? Because NFP sex is very specifically not procreative. So that doesn’t matter.

All you are saying is that it is a sin to alter the design of our reproductive organs? Why?

it is a sin to alter the design of reproduction. When you use ABC you are breaking what isn’t broken. With NFP you aren’t breaking anything.

Using a car doesn’t alter the natural use of your legs. Cutting your legs off so that you can only use a car is a sin.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Then you’re back to square one, because if God could cause a condom to tear, He could cause a woman to ovulate in a supernatural way.

Now your argument is just back to intent, and the intent in both instances is to thwart procreation. With that line of argument I can’t see justifying NFP because it would have the same ramifications to God.

You’re absolutely right. Go back to my post above…

There are 2 elements to this discussion… the means and the end.
I’m pretty sure that we probably agree on the “end” issue, that is that the goal of spacing/avoiding children must not be selfish and must be done for a serious/well-grounded/grave reason… correct? We can’t just decide to avoid having children for vain/selfish reasons.
Okay.

Intent is a very important part of the issue.

Why is ABC “subversion” but NFP is “not subversion”? In both cases, the couples rely on God interceding with a miracle that bypasses physical laws to achieve pregnancy.

Why does a married couple engage in NFP? Why does a married couple use ABC?

One couple is using the knowledge that sperm cannot penetrate a barrier to avoid pregnancy. The other couple is using the knowledge that a women cannot become pregnant if an egg is not ready to be fertilized to avoid pregnancy.

You’re telling me that one application of knowledge is blessed, and the other is a sin. Why?

I’m not sure how you can separate the idea of intent for pregnancy from the issue, because without that intent there is no issue to begin with.

There are very good reasons that some couples may have for needing to avoid/space their children. These must not be fore selfish or vain reasons. Intent is half the issue.
The means, as in HOW this is achieved, is also part of the issue. The means must not be an insult to God who created the very Sacramental union in the first place.

 

[cargau]

Why is ABC “subversion” but NFP is “not subversion”? In both cases, the couples rely on God interceding with a miracle that bypasses physical laws to achieve pregnancy…

Because with NFP, the barrier is God made and with ABC, it is the man and woman who will to remove God’s freedom with their own barrier.

This is not about God overcoming the desire to defer childbearing. It is about keeping God’s participation in its place as it relates to his own creative design and not taking man made steps to keep God out.

 

[cc1999]

I’ve been watching this thread with interest. Many Catholics intend have great trouble understanding this doctrine, including myself.

The main issue that most people have a problem with deals with “intent.” ABC and NFP, in fact, are exactly the same this way (the means has a separate set of issues). Practicing either with the intent not to have children is gravely sinful. According to the Catholic Church, one can practice NFP with the intent not to have children only under very serious circumstances, not just because they want to, or simply because they don’t wish to have children.

This point seems to be lacking in this discussion.

 

[vsedriver]

I am willing to believe that, but don’t understand how it is reconciled with the teaching that the marital bond must be unitive AND procreative. During infertile periods it is decidedly not procreative. This seems like a contradiction to me.

perhaps you are confusing ‘procreative’ with ‘producing a baby’?

Having sexual relations within the covenant of marriage, regardless of fertility, is unitive and procreative. Whether or not a baby is produced.

Deliberately altering fertility is denying the procreative requirement.

 

[cc1999]

Deliberately altering fertility is denying the procreative requirement.

Which is exactly why the use of NFP is also a mortal sin except under very grave circumstances.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Which is exactly why the use of NFP is also a mortal sin except under very grave circumstances.

Actually, Humanae Vitae uses the terms “serious” and “well-grounded”…
The Catechism says “just”…

 

[vsedriver]

Which is exactly why the use of NFP is also a mortal sin except under very grave circumstances.

how does NFP alter fertility?

 

[cargau]

I’ve been watching this thread with interest. Many Catholics intend have great trouble understanding this doctrine, including myself.

The main issue that most people have a problem with deals with “intent.” ABC and NFP, in fact, are exactly the same this way (the means has a separate set of issues). Practicing either with the intent not to have children is gravely sinful. According to the Catholic Church, one can practice NFP with the intent not to have children only under very serious circumstances, not just because they want to, or simply because they don’t wish to have children.

This point seems to be lacking in this discussion.

While this is a valid and proper statement, it may confuse those who are struggling with the subtle but important distinctions between ABC and NFP. There have been previous posts that have alluded to the fact that misuse or overuse of NFP can be sinful. Still the appropriate use of NFP, not being sinful and the use of ABC, always being sinful is where folks are struggling…

 

[cargau]

perhaps you are confusing ‘procreative’ with ‘producing a baby’?

Having sexual relations within the covenant of marriage, regardless of fertility, is unitive and procreative. Whether or not a baby is produced.

Deliberately altering fertility is denying the procreative requirement.

This is well stated…

 

[cc1999]

how does NFP alter fertility?

It doesn’t.

However, the use of NFP doesn’t alter the intent not to have children, which is sinful, barring very specific circumstances, according to the Catholic Church.

The real question is

“What is the Theological basis for allowing marital acts to be performed while intending not to have children in certain circumstances and not others?”

Is it based in the Bible, Church Tradition, or something else?

Answering this question will likely go a long way toward addressing the original post.

We all understand the physical differences between ABC and NFP.

A great number of people simply do not understand why “intent” is sinful in some situations and not others. Answering this in a clear and concise manner makes the issue concerning the physical act easy to explain.