Theological basis for NFP?

[Alyosha13]

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.

It’s one thing to say that this teaching is infallible and should be accepted because it is infallible. That does not attempt to introduce a logical methodology for coming to the conclusion. It’s simply faith that this teaching of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

If that is your reason, I can’t tell you that you are wrong. But I can still say that, guided by the Holy Spirit or not, the logic in the teaching as presented does not hold up.

 

[Alyosha13]

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

That’s just a statement of fact. It does nothing to illuminate why this is sinful, or to answer my question about why sex when a woman is not naturally fertile is not a sin, seeing as how it deliberately denies the necessary procreative function.

 

[Alyosha13]

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.

I saw the big bolded assertion you made, just not the logic that would demonstrate its validity. The only evidence that you provided, numbered below it, was in relation to abstention being moral. You did not address why restricting sex to nonprocreative cycles is still moral.

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.

Again, the “guilt” you speak of is presumed in your argument, which is what I ask for clarification on. Guild implies it is sinful. I am asking why it is sinful, you must do more to answer than “because doing it would make you guilty”.

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”

No apology necessary, the issues that need explaining are crystallizing in my mind at least.

 

[Alyosha13]

ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/ZBODTRUT.HTM

It’s difficult for me to have a conversation with EWTN, but I will try, and rely on you to answer on its behalf.

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.

That premise is a sound one. Now let’s see if it applies to this conversation.

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.

However, if the sin is “not telling the truth” then both are indeed guilty. If the sin of contraception is denying the procreative aspect of marital sex, then each method is sinful.

You will counter that one method is sinful and that another is not. But your quote doesn’t explain WHY this is the case, it only makes an analogy of the point it is trying to establish. Rephrasing the argument is not the same as lending evidence in support of it, which is what I am hoping for.

 

[cargau]

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

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

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.

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

One last time…

Your inability or unwillingness to see the wisdom does not mean that it is contradictory or illogical…quite the contrary.

My comments do not contradict HV. The church teaches that we must be open to the possibility of life. It does not mean that a new life must result. If a married man and woman have sexual intercourse and the woman has reached menapause, she will likely not become pregnant. That does not mean that the encounter was unholy because they knew that she would not become pregnant. Still they took no action to subvert the posssibility of God’s intervention. They are working with God not against him.

If I invited you to a party and when you arrived, I slammed and bolted the door, you would conclude that I was not really invited. That is what ABC does…

Your reluctance to give prayer a chance is not at all surprising…A little bit of humility goes a long way to real understanding.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It’s difficult for me to have a conversation with EWTN, but I will try, and rely on you to answer on its behalf.

That premise is a sound one. Now let’s see if it applies to this conversation.

However, if the sin is “not telling the truth” then both are indeed guilty. If the sin of contraception is denying the procreative aspect of marital sex, then each method is sinful.

You will counter that one method is sinful and that another is not. But your quote doesn’t explain WHY this is the case, it only makes an analogy of the point it is trying to establish. Rephrasing the argument is not the same as lending evidence in support of it, which is what I am hoping for.

Just to show you in criminal law a person has the right to remain silent.

Do you see the difference between?

Police officer: Did you steal that car?

Car theif: No, it was given to me (lie)

and

Police officer: Did you steal that car?

Car theif: I have the right to remain silent

 

[Alyosha13]

One last time…

Your inability or unwillingness to see the wisdom does not mean that it is contradictory or illogical…quite the contrary.

You are presupposing that I am unwilling to see wisdom simply because I disagree with the statements you are making. I could assert the same thing, but it would get us nowhere. Better to stick to the topic at hand then make guesses about each other’s inner thoughts.

My comments do not contradict HV. The church teaches that we must be open to the possibility of life. It does not mean that a new life must result.

How can a couple claim to be open to the possibility of life when they are restricting their sex very specifically to the times when the woman is infertile for the sole reason of not having children? 2+2 does not equal 5 no matter how much you want it to.

If anything, NFP is touted as being more “effective” than artificial birth control. Would it then follow that those using “less effective” methods are “more open to life”? Of course not. The logic is erroneous.

If a married man and woman have sexual intercourse and the woman has reached menapause, she will likely not become pregnant. That does not mean that the encounter was unholy because they knew that she would not become pregnant. Still they took no action to subvert the posssibility of God’s intervention. They are working with God not against him.

Menopause is not an applicable analogy because choice is not a factor, which is what is being described and contested as sinful. The distinction I am attempting to unearth is the distinction between choosing planning methods via NFP or artificial birth control, not the distinction of choosing children vs. the inability to do so.

If I invited you to a party and when you arrived, I slammed and bolted the door, you would conclude that I was not really invited. That is what ABC does…

If you only have parties when you know I’m not going to be able to attend to guarantee I won’t be there, I would conclude that I was not really invited, even if you liked to talk about how much you missed me. That’s what NFP does.

Your reluctance to give prayer a chance is not at all surprising…A little bit of humility goes a long way to real understanding.

When did I say this isn’t something I pray about? I said prayer won’t make sense of bad logic.

And what do you mean about “not surprising”? Again, with the personal attacks…

 

[Alyosha13]

Just to show you in criminal law a person has the right to remain silent.

Do you see the difference between?

Police officer: Did you steal that car?

Car theif: No, it was given to me (lie)

and

Police officer: Did you steal that car?

Car theif: I have the right to remain silent

I see the difference between your police scenario. I disagree that it is an accurate description of NFP vs artificial birth control.

Rather than creating different stories that simply reiterate what you have already said plainly, what I am trying to find is an explanation of the logic that supports this position - spoken plainly or in analogy.

 

[mellestad]

@Alyosha13: Not that you likely want my opinion, but I read through this whole thread and I can’t see any actual answers to your question that are not “Because the church said so”.

I think one of the above posters had it right on this…either you trust that the “Church” is led by your god and in this case there has been a divine mandate given that there is some sort of supernatural difference between contraception and NFP…or you don’t.

Rationally, NFP and contraception are identical. They both rely on making it physically impossible for an egg to be successfully fertilized and implanted. In one case the sperm swim around and nothing happens, and in the other case the sperm swim around and nothing happens.

If there are reasons for the contradiction, they seem to be supernatural and beyond rational comprehension.

That is assuming there is not some other argument not seen in this thread.

 

[kbachler]

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.

There is scientific proof that is accepted by doctors and counselors. Is what you are asking is for me to look it up for you and quote it here? Even Wikipedia has the references!

Is that the ONLY way to bond? I didn’t claim that. I said that it is an important way to bond, and I recognize that the faithful are different. Some need more of some forms than others (See Romans 14).

Also, say your hypothesis is correct, a mysterious chemical hormonal bond occurs during the fertile period,

It happens in ANY period, fertile or non-fertile, male and female, that’s the point.

wouldn’t it segue that that bond would result in a life if unhampered with by a contraceptive?

No. The bonding mechanism is hormonal separate from the conception mechanism.

This is exactly the point. The understanding of sex when these materials were developed WAS INCORRECT and INCOMPLETE.

If I seek relations when I am fertile, the natural outcome would be conception…

Not necessarily.

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.

HUH??

Using a car is using not using your leg as intended, jus as you argue using contraception is not using your sexual sysemt as intended (which as science can now show, is a wrong assumption.)

 

[Alyosha13]

@Alyosha13: Not that you likely want my opinion, but I read through this whole thread and I can’t see any actual answers to your question that are not “Because the church said so”.

I think one of the above posters had it right on this…either you trust that the “Church” is led by your god and in this case there has been a divine mandate given that there is some sort of supernatural difference between contraception and NFP…or you don’t.

Rationally, NFP and contraception are identical. They both rely on making it physically impossible for an egg to be successfully fertilized and implanted. In one case the sperm swim around and nothing happens, and in the other case the sperm swim around and nothing happens.

If there are reasons for the contradiction, they seem to be supernatural and beyond rational comprehension.

That is assuming there is not some other argument not seen in this thread.

I appreciate your take. It’s very refreshing!

If the answer is “Just one of those things we have to take on faith” then that’s a fine answer, you can’t really argue with it, even if you don’t understand it or adopt it as your own.

What I have a very tough time with is the idea that this is backed by logic and theology that is supposed to make sense, because as you say, it is very difficult to come by.

 

[mellestad]

I appreciate your take. It’s very refreshing!

If the answer is “Just one of those things we have to take on faith” then that’s a fine answer, you can’t really argue with it, even if you don’t understand it or adopt it as your own.

What I have a very tough time with is the idea that this is backed by logic and theology that is supposed to make sense, because as you say, it is very difficult to come by.

Well…I guess I had not thought of it in that way. I get what you’re saying though…if we just have to take it on faith, why do the people (often those with authority even) claiming to have rational reasons just keep saying things that boil down to, ‘because the church says so’.

I’m not Catholic, so I can’t help you with that, unfortunately. I could formulate an answer, but it would be more about psychology and evolutionary psychology than theology, haha.

Good luck, I hope you can come to a solution that doesn’t burden you with guilt.

 

[TimothyH]

I cannot speak to the issue of NFP vs ABC but I can speak to the issue of the sinful nature of artificial contraception in general. Forgive me if it has been addressed.

The biblical basis for the teaching comes from Dueteronomy 25 and Genesis 38.

*When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. If, however, a man does not care to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go up to the elders at the gate and declare, ‘My brother-in-law does not intend to perform his duty toward me and refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel.’ Thereupon the elders of his city shall summon him and admonish him. If he persists in saying, ‘I am not willing to marry her,’ his sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’ And his lineage shall be spoken of in Israel as ‘the family of the man stripped of his sandal.’ (Dueteronomy 25:5-10)*Continuing a family name, raising a male heir and continuation of the blood line was so important to the ancients that a brother was required to raise up a son for his dead brother by his brother’s widow. That son would inherit his dead brother’s property but would not be counted as his own in spite of the fact that he had to provide for the child. The punishment for not doing so was public humiliation.

*Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.” Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too. (Genesis 38:8-10)*Onan did not fulfill his obligation under the law to raise up an heir to his brother yet receive a much harsher penalty than the perscribed loss of a sandal and a slap across the face. God took Onan’s life and the Catholic Church as well as orthodox Judiasim has always interpreted this as an indication of the gravely sinful nature of “Wasting seed.” Remember that in the Old Testament, loss of life was used to forshadowed New Testament mortal sin.

To understand the theological basis of why God took Onan’s life, we need to look at the nature of God, man and how human life is created.

God is pure spirit. He has no created parts, no weight, no size and no color. God is a purely spiritual being and he is immortal. Things like rocks and cars are purely created matter with no spirit. Man alone posesses both a created, mortal body and an immortal spirit made in God’s image. When man’s spirit seperates from his body he dies - his created body returns to the dust and his immortal spirit lives on. If the spirit is seperated from the body, the body is dead. It’s just that simple. Claims of out of body experiences aside, seperation of body and spirit (death) can happen only once.

If a spirit should seperate from a mans body when he is 70 years old, the man dies. The same happens if a child’s spirit should seperate from his body at 7 years old or an infant at 7 minutes old. No spirit, no life. If the spirit of an infant in the womb seperates from its body then we call that stillbirth or miscarriage. Now when man and woman unite in spousal unioun, man brings the sperm and woman brings the egg. They create the human body. God alone must bring the spirit, which he places into the fertilized egg at the moment of conception. This must be so because if there is no spirit, the egg is not alive. No spirit, no life. It’s just that simple.

In the act of spousal union, man, woman and God unite with man bringing sperm, woman bringing egg and God bringing spirit. All three unite in the act of spousal union to create a human life. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that man, woman and God are co-creators of human life and why life begins at conception. This is why Remember, no spirit, no life.

In spilling his seed, Onan denied God one of the greatest things he ever does, joining with man and woman to create a life. Onan denied God the ability to create a life and so God demanded his. God taking Onan’s life under the mosaic law makes perfect sense. It was a life for a life.

I sense that the NFP vs ABC discussion hinges on the husband and wife intent to deny God the chance to create a life vs being “open” to life and thereby not preventing God from participating in the process. I would love to hear further discusssion on this topic but the explanation above is basic teaching, in part, on the Biblical and theological basis for Curch teaching on the sinful nature of artificial birth control.

-Tim-

 

[davidv]

I appreciate your take. It’s very refreshing!

If the answer is “Just one of those things we have to take on faith” then that’s a fine answer, you can’t really argue with it, even if you don’t understand it or adopt it as your own.

What I have a very tough time with is the idea that this is backed by logic and theology that is supposed to make sense, because as you say, it is very difficult to come by.

Apparently you are unable to see the logic and theology presented to you by posters in this thread. Would you possibly consider the words of a Pope?

Please read this Encyclical by Pope Paul V.

 

[Alyosha13]

In regards to Onan, he would have been equally disobedient had he used NFP to disobey the commandment to continue the family line as he was by using the withdrawl method. The purpose of that story was not to provide commentary on which methods of not having children (temporarily or as Onan would have had it, permanently) are permissible, but rather Onan disobeying.

I sense that the NFP vs ABC discussion hinges on the husband and wife intent to deny God the chance to create a life vs being “open” to life and thereby not preventing God from participating in the process. I would love to hear further discusssion on this topic but the explanation above is basic teaching, in part, on the Biblical and theological basis for Curch teaching on the sinful nature of artificial birth control.
-Tim-

Then that teaching is incomplete, unless you would suggest that God would not have punished Onan had he refused to have a child while practicing NFP to 99.8% effectiveness (probably more effective than withdrawl).

 

[Bookcat]

How does only having sex when the woman is not fertile not also an exercise in meaninglessness?

And how does this explain why contraception is a sin?

Read the articles…the one was a VERY in depth theological explaination!!!

Regarding your many other questions…Call Catholic answers and speak with an Apologist etc…one gives articles etc cause there is too much to be said than can be said on some little forum space…you need to talk with a live person!

…a forum is really a limited space to discuss such…

 

[Alyosha13]

Read the articles…the one was a VERY in depth theological explaination!!!

Regarding your many other questions…Call Catholic answers and speak with an Apologist etc…one gives articles etc cause there is too much to be said than can be said on some little forum space…you need to talk with a live person!

…a forum is really a limited space to discuss such…

I did read it, but since I can’t talk with the author in this forum to ask him questions, there’s no point addressing it. Suffice to say, it is not very different than all of the answers here.

Most live people (and people on the internet, for that matter) end up referring you to a DVD or a book or a website, but I will of course keep trying!

 

[Alyosha13]

Apparently you are unable to see the logic and theology presented to you by posters in this thread. Would you possibly consider the words of a Pope?

Please read this Encyclical by Pope Paul V.

It’s not just me who is having trouble understanding the arguments in this thread.

I assure you I’ve read it, which is where my questions come from.

 

[davidv]

It’s not just me who is having trouble understanding the arguments in this thread.

I assure you I’ve read it, which is where my questions come from.

Then please reformulate the questions. Repeating them is not likely to get a different response.

 

[mellestad]

Near as I can tell, the Pope himself simply makes the assertion that there is a difference between artificial contraception and NFP, but I don’t see where he actually lays out a factual argument or rational reasons for why there is a distinction between the two.

Then he makes a slippery slope argument against artificial contraception, but that is all…he just says if X happens then Y might be the result, so we should avoid X. That is a logical fallacy though, not a convincing argument for a rational reader.

Honestly, I had zero idea that NFP was even an actual ‘thing’ before reading about it on this forum, so this has been a fascinating discussion to watch. I don’t get it, honestly. There are lots of Catholic theology I don’t agree with, but at least for most of it I can follow the logic, but this one has me totally stumped.

I can’t see how they differ. What is the intent of NFP? Infertile sex. What is the intent of artificial contraception? Infertile sex. What is the factual difference between the two methods? In some cases the entry of sperm into the vagina. In other cases the implantation of an egg in the uterus.

Because of Catholic theology regarding conception, I can see a logically consistent argument for banning estrogen based birth control. I can also see a consistent argument banning any sex not for the purpose of procreation. Well, no, I can’t really, but at least you can take it a few steps further back before the argument breaks down but that’s a different thread. However, I can’t see any relevant factual differences or any differences in intent or motivation when comparing barrier contraception and NFP.

And, seriously, I don’t have anything riding on the outcome of this either way as it doesn’t impact my personal decisions.

Honestly though, the surveys I see show Catholic women in western nations as being as confused as Alyosha13, since the vast majority don’t seem to be following the edict on this issue. That doesn’t mean they are ‘right’, but it does mean the church as a whole isn’t doing a good job about getting a convincing message out. I’d be careful of criticizing the logic comprehension skills of people who don’t ‘get it’ when the majority of female Catholics in industrialized nations don’t ‘get it’ either.

Summary: When you have a message with such a low acceptance rate, maybe there is something about the message that needs re-evaluation. If the church isn’t willing to change it’s stance on the issue, perhaps it would be wise to engage in some humble introspection about why the message fails to convince more than a small double-digit percentage of its own laity. much less outsiders.

But what do I know, right?