Theological basis for NFP?

[Alyosha13]

Contraception, however, is always an abuse of the Creator’s design. Even when they have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy for a time, a couple actively works against God when they resort to it. Contraception therefore is an objective moral wrong even if the motives are otherwise acceptable.

There are, indeed, 2 levels in discussion here: the act and the motive. It is impossible for us humans to judge the motive. God alone can do that.

But just before you claim that artificial contraception is wrong because “the couple actively works against God.” So how can you only claim that God can judge the motive on one hand, but then presume to explain the sin of contraception based on what you are assuming a couple’s motive is on the other hand? Why can not a couple use artificial birth control and be just as open to God’s plan as a couple that is planning its children via NFP?

I still don’t see how using artificial contraception is “working against God.” This is something that has never made sense to me.

Contraception is not explicitly addressed in the Bible but it has been explicitly, consistently addressed by the Church. Jesus assured us that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore we can be confident that what she teaches is true.

I am not having trouble understanding what the Church says. I am having trouble understanding why the Church says it. None of the explanations make any sense.

 

[Alyosha13]

How can periodic abstinence (NFP) be a distortion when, by definition, it is doing nothing? Doing nothing cannot distort anything.

I did not assert that either method was a distortion. What I asked was why, when the “marriage bond” is described as something that allows for procreation in order to be complete, is sex during a natural infertile time any less of a distortion of this procreative aspect of the bond than sex during an artificially infertile time.

The assertion was that infertile sex is less than complete. My question is why naturally infertile sex is any different than artificially infertile sex.

When the couple do come together, it is in the usual way, so there is no distortion there, either.

What do you mean by this? The usual way?

 

[SonCatcher]

But just before you claim that artificial contraception is wrong because “the couple actively works against God.” … Why can not a couple use artificial birth control and be just as open to God’s plan as a couple that is planning its children via NFP?

I still don’t see how using artificial contraception is “working against God.” This is something that has never made sense to me.

God created humans in His likeness and image. We have the unique privilege of participating in His creative work such that, when we procreate, we cooperate with Him in bringing about a new, immortal person.

By contracepting, a couple indulge themselves in the pleasure derived from the marital embrace while simultaneously denying the creative work God intended it for.

So how can you only claim that God can judge the motive on one hand, but then presume to explain the sin of contraception based on what you are assuming a couple’s motive is on the other hand?

I do not presume to judge motive at all. The judgment is on action and action alone. When someone is tried in a court, they are judged on their actions first. A person who drives too fast is fined even if he didn’t see the speed limit sign. A person who kills is sent to prison. These judgments are made on actions.

I am not having trouble understanding what the Church says. I am having trouble understanding why the Church says it. None of the explanations make any sense.

The Holy Spirit guided the Church to make this judgement. He is the only one who can fully explain “why.” Many theologians have given excellent supporting reasons that show the Holy Spirit lead the Church rightly.

 

[Alyosha13]

God created humans in His likeness and image. We have the unique privilege of participating in His creative work such that, when we procreate, we cooperate with Him in bringing about a new, immortal person.

By contracepting, a couple indulge themselves in the pleasure derived from the marital embrace while simultaneously denying the creative work God intended it for.
I do not presume to judge motive at all. The judgment is on action and action alone. When someone is tried in a court, they are judged on their actions first. A person who drives too fast is fined even if he didn’t see the speed limit sign. A person who kills is sent to prison. These judgments are made on actions.

What you say applies equally to restricting sex to the infertile cycle. It is denying the creative work God intended sex for. It is denying the procreative aspect of the marriage bond.

My question is, why is one method of denying the creative work of God allowed, but another is not? I still don’t understand the basis for the distinction.

Contraception can’t be a sin only because it denies the procreative aspect of the marriage bond, because that’s exactly what restricting sex to infertile cycles does. One is a naturally infertile cycle, and the other is artificially induced.

If you are arguing that any sex within marriage that is designed to avoid the procreative aspect of the marriage bond is a sin, I would not agree with your position, but I would understand your logic. But because you also allow non-procreative sex to take place so long as it is during a naturally infertile cycle, I would suggest that the logic is contradictory.

The Holy Spirit guided the Church to make this judgement. He is the only one who can fully explain “why.” Many theologians have given excellent supporting reasons that show the Holy Spirit lead the Church rightly.

You are saying that the Church doesn’t know why it believes this, and I have to ask the Holy Spirit?

 

[Nita]

By contracepting, a couple indulge themselves in the pleasure derived from the marital embrace while simultaneously denying the creative work God intended it for.
I do not presume to judge motive at all. The judgment is on action and action alone. When someone is tried in a court, they are judged on their actions first. A person who drives too fast is fined even if he didn’t see the speed limit sign. A person who kills is sent to prison. These judgments are made on actions.
.

It is not just the physical action that is subject to judgement; our motives/reasons are also subject to judgement. Altho we cannot judge the personal guilt of someone’s motives, God will. We have a responsibility to learn what constitutes improper motives for practicing NFP. Selfishness is a sin; lust is a sin;… Just because a man and a woman are married doesn’t mean they are immune to those sins.

 

[Nita]

My question is, why is one method of denying the creative work of God allowed, but another is not? I still don’t understand the basis for the distinction.

In seeking to regulate pregnancy, there are two aspects that have to be examined for morality:

1. ** reason **for avoiding bearing a child.
   Is the reason a just one, a serious one?
   If the reason is just, then this aspect is morally acceptable.
2. ** method **used.
   Sexual union while deliberately attempting to prevent the natural life producing processes is immoral.
   Abstaining from marital relations is morally acceptable.

Attempting to regulate pregnancy is moral if:

1. There is a serious reason for not getting pregnant at that time. (Health; unable to provide;…)
2. One does it in the morally acceptable way thru abstinence – either total, or thru NFP.

Using NFP when there is no just reason for preventing pregnancy is immoral.
Using artificial contraceptives when there is a just reason for preventing pregnancy is immoral.
And of course, using contraceptives when there is no just reason is immoral.

 

[Alyosha13]

In seeking to regulate pregnancy, there are two aspects that have to be examined for morality:

1. ** reason **for avoiding bearing a child.
   Is the reason a just one, a serious one?
   If the reason is just, then this aspect is morally acceptable.

So far, nothing to do with why artificial birth control is a sin.

1. ** method **used.
   Sexual union while deliberately attempting to prevent the natural life producing processes is immoral.
   Abstaining from marital relations is morally acceptable.

According to this, NFP is immoral. Is that what you meant? What is NFP except the “planning”/preventing of natural life?

Attempting to regulate pregnancy is moral if:

1. There is a serious reason for not getting pregnant at that time. (Health; unable to provide;…)
2. One does it in the morally acceptable way thru abstinence – either total, or thru NFP.

You haven’t explained WHY artificial contraception is immoral. All you have done is say in a different way that NFP and abstinence are the only moral options. Even though above you seemed to indicate that NFP was immoral, because, by only having sex during times of infertility, you would be “deliberately attempting to prevent the natural life producing processes” - your words, not mine.

Using NFP when there is no just reason for preventing pregnancy is immoral.

That makes sense.

Using artificial contraceptives when there is a just reason for preventing pregnancy is immoral.

You haven’t explained WHY this is the case. What is the theological reasoning that takes you to this conclusion? It can’t just be the fact that artificial contraception is an impediment towards creating a life, because that’s exactly what NFP is. Why else tout it’s 99.8% success rate? Success at doing what?

 

[Nita]

1. method used.
   **Sexual union **

Read it carefully. “Sexual union” refers to the nuptial act; that is, when the physical act is taking place.

When married couples who are practicing NFP do have actual sexual union, they have done NOTHING to interfere with the natural process that could result in pregnancy. (There is no guarantee that ovulation will not occur. The only 100% sure method is total abstinence.)

When married couples practicing NFP abstain during what is estimated to be the fertile period, they are NOT having sexual union. During that time, and at all other times, nothing is done to interfere with any of the reproductive natural processes taking place in their bodies at the time.

(It is time for morning Mass and Holy Hour. Will respond to your next points later.)

 

[Kay_Cee]

God designed human biology.
God does not err.
Therefore, God did not err when He designed human biology.

NFP works within God’s design.

Contraception seeks to thwart God’s design.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Marital relations are a renewal of the marriage bond. That is, of the Sacrament of Matrimony. If a couple choose not to have relations for a time then they merely do not renew their bond for that time. When they come back together, their "I do"s are genuine.

However, if they engage in contraceptive relations, they are making a distortion of the marriage bond. They may as well have laughed off their vows or replied with a grim “whatever.”

Scott Hahn has a talk about NFP where he compares marital relations to the Eucharist. He likens NFP to someone who remains in the pew during Eucharist. He didn’t do anything wrong because he didn’t do anything at all. However, Mr. Hahn likens contraceptive relations to a person who takes ipecac syrup just before receiving, causing him to vomit just afterward. A clear act of desecration. Do you want to vomit out the sacrament of your marriage?

Thank you, can you point me to the title of the talk?

 

[MarcoPolo]

That didn’t explain why artificial contraception, as opposed to only having sex when the woman is infertile, is a sin.

Because contraception makes incomplete an expression that says “This act is the summit of giving myself completely to you.” Abstinence does not involve engaging in that special expression in the first place. Nita is correct, by the way.

 

[Nita]

Originally Posted by Nita
In seeking to regulate pregnancy, there are two aspects that have to be examined for morality:

1. reason for avoiding bearing a child.
   Is the reason a just one, a serious one?
   If the reason is just, then this aspect is morally acceptable

Correct – assuming they have a just reason for trying to regulate pregnancy. However, “reason” is not the only factor used in determining the morality of trying to avoid pregnancy.

You haven’t explained WHY artificial contraception is immoral. All you have done is say in a different way that NFP and abstinence are the only moral options. Even though above you seemed to indicate that NFP was immoral, because, by only having sex during times of infertility, you would be “deliberately attempting to prevent the natural life producing processes” - your words, not mine.

That makes sense.

You haven’t explained WHY this is the case. What is the theological reasoning that takes you to this conclusion? It can’t just be the fact that artificial contraception is an impediment towards creating a life, because that’s exactly what NFP is. Why else tout it’s 99.8% success rate? Success at doing what?

Re the "WHY’'s: I thought others had gone into it sufficiently - especially in looking at it from the unitive aspect.
In case no one has mentioned it from the **physical aspect **of how God designed our human nature, you might want to spend some time pondering that.

God designed human nature in accordance with how* He wants *our human bodies to work. Our reproductive organs were designed, by God, precisely for that purpose - to reproduce. In establishing the nature of the woman’s reproductive organ/s, God chose to have the ovary produce an ovum only once a month (generally). When artificial birth control is used, it does away with (so to speak) what God has designed into human nature. Various methods do this in various ways: the pill can physically intervene to prevent the natural ovulation; or failing that, like the IUD, it can prevent the natural implantation of the fertilized ovum. It’s like telling God His design of the human reproductive system is faulty; that in designing the reproductive organs, He didn’t sufficiently take into consideration what is best for humans. We know better and therefore can alter His design.

Now, the reason that NFP **method **can be considered moral (again, assuming a just reason) is that it doesn’t alter, interfere, or do away with the God’s design of the reproductive organs in human nature. Rather, based on the knowledge of how God designed it, it “works with” that design in the effort to avoid pregnancy for a just and serious reason.

(Just a P.S. to be sure we both understand “moral” in the same way. I consider something to be moral when it is in conformity with God’s will; immoral when it is contrary to His will.)

 

[kbachler]

Strictly speaking, NFP is not “right.” It is neutral. Used judiciously, it is acceptable for the couple. As Alyosha13 said in the opening post, it can be abused if the couple use it unjustly. Even when abused, the action of NFP is nothing. Because a couple using NFP does nothing there is never an objective moral wrong committed.

But this is an incorrect argument, both in theory, and in practice. OF COURSE the couple takes an action. They learn about NFP. They change the frequency and timing of the marital act from fertile periods to infertile periods. Just from the letters in these forums alone, that is often an unbearable burden.

But seriously, if people weren’t acting on NFP then NFP WOULDN’T EXIST. The argument that the couple is doing nothing simply makes no sense.

Contraception, however, is always an abuse of the Creator’s design.

Why?

Is a car an abuse of the Creator’s design for our legs? Bad analogy? How about rollerskates? Shoes?

Even when they have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy for a time, a couple actively works against God when they resort to it.

I’m sorry, EXACTLY THE SAME argument can be made for NFP+abstinence. A couple ACTIVELY TIMES their marital act to occur when an egg cannot be fertilized.

Contraception therefore is an objective moral wrong even if the motives are otherwise acceptable.

In which case I guess we can also argue that a car, rollerskates and penicillin also work actively against God when we resort to them?

God created us. He created our minds and our hands and commanded us to use them. He gave us dominion over the Earth. The intention of spacing children is not wrong and is the same for NFP or ABC. The argument that NFP and ABC are different (ignoring for discussion sake that some forms of ABC might have abortifacient side-effects) is, based on the arguments presented so far, not a strong one.

There are, indeed, 2 levels in discussion here: the act and the motive. It is impossible for us humans to judge the motive. God alone can do that.

However, it is possible for us to judge the act. Certain things we know about. We know murder is wrong because it is explicitly condemned in the Bible. Contraception is not explicitly addressed in the Bible but it has been explicitly, consistently addressed by the Church. Jesus assured us that the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore we can be confident that what she teaches is true.

The Church has a history of incorrectly addressing issues that have a scientific basis. Therefore, given that there is much of a scientific/medical nature learned about human sexuality in the last 150 years, and accelerating in the lat 80, 60, 40… it is, frankly, quite easy to believe that the past arguments provided by the Church are based on historical and traditional biases of mankind, and generally incorrect medical and scientific information. Perhaps there is a good argument that the past decisions made sense in their day; it is highly difficult to not question these arguments today - and find them wanting.

The Church also has a history of being slow admitting such errors. It was what - 380 years before they issued an apology with respect to Galileo?

Everything He does follows his moral and physical laws. Science helps us to come to know him by studying and learning in depth His physical laws. I do not believe that God breaks His physical laws any more than I believe that He breaks his moral laws. If He did, His universe would be random. If His universe were random, then his commandment that we love him with all our heart, and soul, and strength and mind would be at best meaningless, and at worst mischievous or even malicious. God is not these things.

In learning about His physical laws, we can sometimes learn more about His moral laws. There would have been a time, no doubt, that an effective scientific/medical technique like a blood transfusion would have been abhorrent for a host of religious reasons. (1669, in fact)

In some ways this is a good analogy, because in earlier times, people believed there was a life force in blood, as they also believed there was in semen.

In 1669 the Vatican prohibited blood transfusions. I have been unable to document when that was first reversed; but sometimes, things do change.

 

[kbachler]

Because contraception makes incomplete an expression that says “This act is the summit of giving myself completely to you.” Abstinence does not involve engaging in that special expression in the first place. Nita is correct, by the way.

In what sense then, wouldn’t abstinence create the same incompleteness? The form of logic you are using here, is one that was used by Aristotle. This form has long been known to be incorrect. (See Frege and Russell).

 

[kbachler]

Correct – assuming they have a just reason for trying to regulate pregnancy. However, “reason” is not the only factor used in determining the morality of trying to avoid pregnancy.

Re the "WHY’'s: I thought others had gone into it sufficiently - especially in looking at it from the unitive aspect.
In case no one has mentioned it from the **physical aspect **of how God designed our human nature, you might want to spend some time pondering that.

God designed human nature in accordance with how* He wants *our human bodies to work. Our reproductive organs were designed, by God, precisely for that purpose - to reproduce. In establishing the nature of the woman’s reproductive organ/s, God chose to have the ovary produce an ovum only once a month (generally). When artificial birth control is used, it does away with (so to speak) what God has designed into human nature. Various methods do this in various ways: the pill can physically intervene to prevent the natural ovulation; or failing that, like the IUD, it can prevent the natural implantation of the fertilized ovum. It’s like telling God His design of the human reproductive system is faulty; that in designing the reproductive organs, He didn’t sufficiently take into consideration what is best for humans. We know better and therefore can alter His design.

Now, the reason that NFP **method **can be considered moral (again, assuming a just reason) is that it doesn’t alter, interfere, or do away with the God’s design of the reproductive organs in human nature. Rather, based on the knowledge of how God designed it, it “works with” that design in the effort to avoid pregnancy for a just and serious reason.

(Just a P.S. to be sure we both understand “moral” in the same way. I consider something to be moral when it is in conformity with God’s will; immoral when it is contrary to His will.)

Nita, in that case, give up your car, because He designed you with legs. Give up medical drugs, He designed you with an immune system. Give up eyeglasses, and any other tool that helps us do anything.

Oh but wait, He also designed us with a brain, and hands, and told us to use them.

The original “natural” argument was later abandoned by the Church, you know, right?

Or, maybe we should look at the fact that a series of powerful hormones are released by the marital act, and that some (many?) of those hormones appear to be responsible for bonding and intimacy and protective feelings, such that if we understood ALL of the processes behind the marital act, we see that there are in fact some very good reasons why - using the argument you propose - we would find that abstinence would be against God’s purposes and immoral. This just serves as another proof that your form of argument is utterly faulty, because we know that abstinence IS NOT implicitly immoral.

You’ll have to do much better. If there is a a reason why NFP differs from non-abortifacient ABC, it is not apparent from the arguments you’ve presented.

 

[kbachler]

God designed human biology.
God does not err.
Therefore, God did not err when He designed human biology.

NFP works within God’s design.

Contraception seeks to thwart God’s design.

Therefore, God designed your legs for walking. Therefore you should walk. Sell your car.

 

[Nita]

Why?

Is a car an abuse of the Creator’s design for our legs? Bad analogy? How about rollerskates? Shoes?
.

??? How do any of these alter how and why God designed our feet/legs. Maybe you have a far more restrictive meaning as to their purpose.

 

[Nita]

Nita, in that case, give up your car, because He designed you with legs. Give up medical drugs, He designed you with an immune system. Give up eyeglasses, and any other tool that helps us do anything.

How does using a car interfere with how and why God designed our feet/legs. Maybe you have a far more restrictive meaning as to their purpose.

For the record, I think God designed and gave us feet and legs so we can stay upright when standing, walking or running (or even roller skating!).

Oh but wait, He also designed us with a brain, and hands, and told us to use them.

The original “natural” argument was later abandoned by the Church, you know, right?

Nope, I don’t know. Could you please refer me to the Church document that said such reasoning was, or is now, invalid?

Or, maybe we should look at the fact that a series of powerful hormones are released by the marital act, and that some (many?) of those hormones appear to be responsible for bonding and intimacy and protective feelings, such that if we understood ALL of the processes behind the marital act, we see that there are in fact some very good reasons why - using the argument you propose - we would find that abstinence would be against God’s purposes and immoral. This just serves as another proof that your form of argument is utterly faulty, because we know that abstinence IS NOT implicitly immoral.

You’ll have to do much better. If there is a a reason why NFP differs from non-abortifacient ABC, it is not apparent from the arguments you’ve presented.

I never said married couples should live a celibate life – forgoing ever experiencing those powerful hormones responsible for bonding … that you refer to. Those same hormones are present when NFP couples do make love; they are not deprived of them anymore than a couple who use artificial contraception can be said to be deprived of them on the days/nights they choose not to make love.

I agree that within marriage abstinence is not implicitly moral (I think you meant moral, not immoral). If only one partner desires to practice periodic abstinence or temporary total abstinence, forcing the other to go along with it, that would raise a moral issue.

 

[cargau]

That didn’t explain why artificial contraception, as opposed to only having sex when the woman is infertile, is a sin.

One of the great tragedies of our time is the unwillingness or inability of priests and deacons to speak clearly about this issue.

First, let me state that the Church does not place this imposition to restrict marital actions or to increase the number of Catholics in the pews.

You want theological explanation? Here goes. If you have any questions or comments, don’t hesitate to reply…

God made man in his image. God endowed his creation with a special gift. That gift is a free participation in his sacred role as creator. In Genesis, we see that God created everything from nothing including man and woman. Each time a man or woman is created, they receive a soul that is immortal. CS Elliott said that man is not a body that happens to have a soul, it is a soul that happens to have a body. This immortal soul will live and never die.

I mentioned that God invites us to an active participation in creation. I didn’t say that God turned over the privilege of creation to man and woman. Man, woman and God, then share in this amazing gift.

When we use ABC, we are in a way, playing God because we are taking deliberate action outside of God to prevent God from being a party to his own creative act. Or at least, the part God is supposed to play in creation.

When we use NFP, we are, as you stated, controlling the spacing and number of children, but we are doing it within the framework of God because he is the designer of the female cycle. Intent is important and that is why we are not free to use even this method unless we have a very good reason for doing so.

It has been stated very well in other responses that our human sexuality has a dual purpose. Human sexuality must always be unitive and it must always be open to the creative aspect. NFP does not do anything to deliberately obstruct either of these purposes.

Theologically speaking the focus is all about inviting God to share in our lives as we share in His. Each time you make love with your spouse, you should feel perfectly at ease inviting God to be a part of your embrace. Actually, that premise should be sustained in all other aspects of our lives as well. Invite God to share in your parenting, work life, play, rest, and of course your marriage.

Finally, Jesus uses the image of bride and groom to demonstrate His love and devotion to the Church. Indeed, marriage is a beautiful and powerful ingredient in God’s communication of love and salvation for the whole world.

Sometimes we humans miss these important theological points. But, for those of us who have children, we were able to marvel at the miracle that took place on the birthday of each of our kids.

God bless your inquisitiveness…

 

[Alyosha13]

Read it carefully. “Sexual union” refers to the nuptial act; that is, when the physical act is taking place.

When married couples who are practicing NFP do have actual sexual union, they have done NOTHING to interfere with the natural process that could result in pregnancy. (There is no guarantee that ovulation will not occur. The only 100% sure method is total abstinence.)

However, they are not open to pregnancy during this sexual union. In fact, they are specifically timing their sex so that it is not procreative. Therefore, because this sex, while unitive, is not procreative, their marital bond is incomplete, and the sex is sinful. Otherwise, what does it mean when we say NFP is “effective”? It certainly doesn’t mean that it is procreative. So, having sex with ZERO intention of procreation is, by your admission, holy and right.

Now, I need to understand why, theologically speaking, it is a sin to regulate the infertility cycles artificially. I understand that it is a manipulation of how God designed our bodies. But so is cutting your hair. There has to be more than just that statement in order to explain why it is a dire sin.

When married couples practicing NFP abstain during what is estimated to be the fertile period, they are NOT having sexual union. During that time, and at all other times, nothing is done to interfere with any of the reproductive natural processes taking place in their bodies at the time.

But the only sex they are having is unitive, it is very specifically not procreative, 99.8% of the time. Therefore, according to the definition of the Church, the sex is immoral.