Theological basis for NFP?

[Alyosha13]

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.

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

Never cutting your hair works within God’s design.

Hair cutting seeks to thwart God’s design.

 

[Alyosha13]

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.

Speaking in metaphor does not help.

 

[Alyosha13]

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[SonCatcher]

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

I borrowed it from a parish library. It was a 3 tape set (maybe CD, too) with 2 talks by Scott and 1 by Kimberly.

I’ll post the titles when I find them again.

 

[Nita]

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.

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

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.

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.

Yes, it is possible to have sex with ZERO intention to procreate. Not sure if ZERO is the proper term since, should pregnancy result, one must be open to accepting the child.
Another example occurs when the woman is beyond child bearing years. The couple may still morally engage in sexual union - but should conception occur, the child should be welcomed. (Sara and Elizabeth were beyond child bearing age when they conceived.)

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.

.

Artificial birth control doesn’t “regulate” the fertility cycle, it eliminates it - or attempts to eliminate it. It eliminates the implantation process.

Regarding cutting hair: I’m not sure just what God’s purpose was in designing it, so don’t know if cutting it would be considered going against it’s purpose or not!

 

[SonCatcher]

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

If that were the case, every couple who do not contracept and do not practice NFP would still be committing immorality 3 weeks per month, during entire pregnancies, after menopause, etc.

However, you are confusing method with motive. More precisely, the use of physical barriers, chemicals, etc. to prevent pregnancy is immoral. NFP does not “use” anything except knowledge, prayer and constant communication between the spouses.

 

[Alyosha13]

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.

So far I’m with you.

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.

Why do we not also do this when we time sex to be restricted within infertile cycles? Doesn’t that strip away the procreative aspect of sex as well? 99.8% of the time? It’s saying, “Thanks God, I’ll take the sex, but I refuse to be a party to the creative function of it.”

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.

So, it’s the “natural” part that saves NFP from being sinful. I don’t understand why that is, theologically. Is it only because God designed the female cycle and it is a sin to alter it? Why do you cut your nails then? If God intended them to be short, that’s how he would have made them. You act outside the framework of God when you do this, and by your logic, it is a sin.

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.

Indeed it does, 99.8% of the time. Why celebrate this statistic as a measure of it’s “success” if you also claim it must be open to the creative aspect of sex? It’s hypocritical because its entire function is to deny the procreative aspect of sex.

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.

This is hyperbole. Nobody is “inviting God to share in their life” any more when the restrict sex to naturally infertile cycles than they are “feeling ease inviting God to be a part of the embrace” when they regulate the infertility of the cycles artificially. How can you seriously claim that people who very deliberately time their sex to only be when the woman is infertile are “open to having a child”?

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.

Again, hyperbole.

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.

I can assure you, those who have children that were spaced with artificial birth control marvel equally at the miracle of their own children’s birthdays.

God bless your inquisitiveness…

I thank you for the genuine attempt to answer these questions, it truly is very frustrating that answers are so hard to come by.

 

[kbachler]

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.

And the same thing is true of our sexual parts, since they are for more than procreating.

Your argument still fails.

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!).

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

Compare HV to earlier documents. It’s clear.

I never said married couples should live a celibate life

Nor did anyone argue that. This is a non sequitur.

– 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.

They ARE deprived of them in the quantity and frequency available with NFP. There is a unitive abstinence going on when compared to ABC.

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.

No, I meant IMMORAL. You weren’t following the argument.

 

[SonCatcher]

SonCatcher;7539826:

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?

“usual” refers to the lack of barriers, chemicals, etc., as they introduce something unusual to the marital embrace (i.e. not part of our natural design for its completion)

 

[Alyosha13]

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

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?

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

Yes, it is possible to have sex with ZERO intention to procreate. Not sure if ZERO is the proper term since, should pregnancy result, one must be open to accepting the child.
Another example occurs when the woman is beyond child bearing years. The couple may still morally engage in sexual union.

This same openness to an unplanned pregnancy can occur while using artificial contraception, I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

 

[Alyosha13]

“usual” refers to the lack of barriers, chemicals, etc., as they introduce something unusual to the marital embrace (i.e. not part of our natural design for its completion)

Okay, but like everybody else, I need the theological reasoning of why “barriers” or "distortions’ are sinful. Not just “unusual” but sin.

 

[Nita]

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.

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

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.

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 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.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

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.

Also, say your hypothesis is correct, a mysterious chemical hormonal bond occurs during the fertile period, wouldn’t it segue that that bond would result in a life if unhampered with by a contraceptive? If I seek relations when I am fertile, the natural outcome would be conception…

As for the car, using a car allows for more efficient transportation. So it would not be equal to using a cotraceptive. A contraceptive, obviously, does not allow for more efficient conception.

 

[Nita]

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

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.

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.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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

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.

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.

Yes…and NFP is also often referred to as “Fertility Awareness”.

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

 

[Persuader]

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.

As far as procreation goes, I consider abc and nfp roughly equivalent. For an action to be procreative, it needs to have a certain likelihood of producing a new life. Some methods of nfp can result in lower failure rates than some methods of abc. That means that nfp can be more effective than some forms of abc. So, what can we conclude from that? Well, if the likelihood of producing new life is lower for some versions of nfp than some versions of abc, some versions of nfp are less procreative than some versions of abc. This is difficult to argue with, and can only be wrong if all versions of abc are more effective than all versions of nfp.

Now, what does that mean? It means that hindering procreation cannot in itself be the reason for why abc is wrong. So, what could it be? I have heard different suggestions, but they mostly relate to an intrinsic wrongness with manipulating the procreative aspect. The problem, however, is that manipulation in itself is not wrong due to the allowance of nfp. Therefore it becomes a question about what type of manipulation is wrong. Again, you hear several suggestions. People might say that hormones is a problem because of how they affect the female, but what about non-hormonal contraception – why are they wrong? If the issue is manipulation of human physiology, why are condoms wrong? And on and on it goes. In my opinion, they are grasping at straws. When one argument doesn’t work, they try to fashion another one. If they actually had a proper argument, they would use that instead of taking people on this merry-go-round of failed arguments and suggestions. To me, it doesn’t make any sense to do this unless you lack a proper argument in the first place.

 

[Nita]

And the same thing is true of our sexual parts, since they are for more than procreating.

How in the world does ABC aid failing sexual parts to continue to carry out their intended purpose? (as glasses help failing eyes; braces failing limbs, etc.)

Compare HV to earlier documents. It’s clear.

I’ve read HV more than once, but it’s been quite a few years. I certainly don’t recall it saying the arguments from human nature are invalid.
Way back in post #32 about the “physical aspects” and the design of our human nature, I indicated I was giving this in addition to all the unitive and procreative positions that had already been given. It was another aspect to be considered in addition to those.

No, I meant IMMORAL. You weren’t following the argument.

You’re right – I must not have been following your argument. I never said abstinence was implicitly immoral and I didn’t think you did either. But maybe that’s what you were proposing. I’ll track the post down and read it again.

 

[cargau]

So far I’m with you…

Why do we not also do this when we time sex to be restricted within infertile cycles? Doesn’t that strip away the procreative aspect of sex as well? 99.8% of the time? It’s saying, “Thanks God, I’ll take the sex, but I refuse to be a party to the creative function of it.”.

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.

So, it’s the “natural” part that saves NFP from being sinful. I don’t understand why that is, theologically. Is it only because God designed the female cycle and it is a sin to alter it? Why do you cut your nails then? If God intended them to be short, that’s how he would have made them. You act outside the framework of God when you do this, and by your logic, it is a sin. .

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.

Indeed it does, 99.8% of the time. Why celebrate this statistic as a measure of it’s “success” if you also claim it must be open to the creative aspect of sex? It’s hypocritical because its entire function is to deny the procreative aspect of sex. .

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.

This is hyperbole. Nobody is “inviting God to share in their life” any more when the restrict sex to naturally infertile cycles than they are “feeling ease inviting God to be a part of the embrace” when they regulate the infertility of the cycles artificially. How can you seriously claim that people who very deliberately time their sex to only be when the woman is infertile are “open to having a child”? .

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.

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.

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. 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…

Again, hyperbole. .

I can assure you, those who have children that were spaced with artificial birth control marvel equally at the miracle of their own children’s birthdays. .

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.

I thank you for the genuine attempt to answer these questions, it truly is very frustrating that answers are so hard to come by.

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…

 

[Kay_Cee]

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

Using a car does not seek to alter the biological function for which my legs were designed. Contraception seeks to alter a biological function.

In fact, the whole purpose of contraception is to alter a biological function. The use of cars is a supplement to a biological purpose, not an alteration of one.

 

[rotlex]

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.

As far as procreation goes, I consider abc and nfp roughly equivalent. For an action to be procreative, it needs to have a certain likelihood of producing a new life. Some methods of nfp can result in lower failure rates than some methods of abc. That means that nfp can be more effective than some forms of abc. So, what can we conclude from that? Well, if the likelihood of producing new life is lower for some versions of nfp than some versions of abc, some versions of nfp are less procreative than some versions of abc. This is difficult to argue with, and can only be wrong if all versions of abc are more effective than all versions of nfp.

Now, what does that mean? It means that hindering procreation cannot in itself be the reason for why abc is wrong. So, what could it be? I have heard different suggestions, but they mostly relate to an intrinsic wrongness with manipulating the procreative aspect. The problem, however, is that manipulation in itself is not wrong due to the allowance of nfp. Therefore it becomes a question about what type of manipulation is wrong. Again, you hear several suggestions. People might say that hormones is a problem because of how they affect the female, but what about non-hormonal contraception – why are they wrong? If the issue is manipulation of human physiology, why are condoms wrong? And on and on it goes. In my opinion, they are grasping at straws. When one argument doesn’t work, they try to fashion another one. If they actually had a proper argument, they would use that instead of taking people on this merry-go-round of failed arguments and suggestions. To me, it doesn’t make any sense to do this unless you lack a proper argument in the first place.

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.