Theological basis for NFP?

[Kay_Cee]

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.)

Contraception deliberately adds (such as a pill, condom, or IUD) or deletes (as in surgical sterilization) from the human body for the express purpose of altering a biological function from the way God designed it to work.

Are you really arguing that we deliberately add to or delete something from our bodies for the express purpose of altering our legs from the way God designed them to work? If so, please show what pill or device I am adding to my body, or what surgery I am using to delete something from my body in order to drive a car.

Also, please explain why you think God intended our legs to be used for no other mode of transportation besides walking, especially in light of Luke 19:33-36 which clearly shows the Son of God mounting and riding a donkey.

 

[Alyosha13]

Contraception deliberately adds (such as a pill, condom, or IUD) or deletes (as in surgical sterilization) from the human body for the express purpose of altering a biological function from the way God designed it to work.

Propecia deliberately prohibits type II 5-alpha reductase, the enzyme that converts testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT contributes to male pattern baldness. By inhibiting this natural and biological process that was created by God, men can have more hair. This is deleting from the body with the express intent to talter a biological function of the body contrary to God’s design.

Is that a sin?

Or is there more to it than that?

 

[davidv]

Propecia deliberately prohibits type II 5-alpha reductase, the enzyme that converts testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT contributes to male pattern baldness. By inhibiting this natural and biological process that was created by God, men can have more hair. This is deleting from the body with the express intent to talter a biological function of the body contrary to God’s design.

Is that a sin?

Or is there more to it than that?

Off topic and the answer won’t help you understand the intrinsic immorality of ABC.

There is more to than what was presented by the poster your responded. Much of it has already been presented in this thread. A cohesive treatment of the topic is contained in the encyclical Hamanae Vitae. A link to it was provided in a prior post.

Have you read Humanae Vitae?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Propecia deliberately prohibits type II 5-alpha reductase, the enzyme that converts testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT contributes to male pattern baldness. By inhibiting this natural and biological process that was created by God, men can have more hair. This is deleting from the body with the express intent to talter a biological function of the body contrary to God’s design.

Is that a sin?

Or is there more to it than that?

There is more to it than that.

Show me where trying to have more hair is a deliberate effort to keep God from creating a human being in His own image and likeness. Otherwise the two things are hardly on the same level.

Besides, you’re talking about trying to *correct *something that’s gone wrong with a person’s body. Contraception is an attempt to alter a body that’s already performing correctly.

 

[Alyosha13]

Off topic and the answer won’t help you understand the intrinsic immorality of ABC.

It’s not off topic, it was a reply to an analogy that was used to attempt to demonstrate the theory that changing one’s living body contrary to God’s design is a sin. Clearly, that is not the case.

There is more to than what was presented by the poster your responded. Much of it has already been presented in this thread. A cohesive treatment of the topic is contained in the encyclical Hamanae Vitae. A link to it was provided in a prior post.

“There is more to than what was presented by the poster your responded.” I don’t understand what you mean to say, so I can’t answer.

Have you read Humanae Vitae?

Yes, I said above that I have, and it is the source of much confusion for myself and other posters and Catholics the world over.

 

[Alyosha13]

There is more to it than that.

Show me where trying to have more hair is a deliberate effort to keep God from creating a human being in His own image and likeness. Otherwise the two things are hardly on the same level.

Okay, so you are introducing “levels” of changing one’s natural body as designed by God. Apparently, sometimes it is okay, and other times it is not. You imply that what makes it not okay is when you change your body to “keep God from creating a human being.”

It seems like your logic is as follows:

1. Changing your body is sometimes okay
2. Keeping God from creating a human being is not okay
3. Changing your body to prevent God from creating a baby is not okay
4. Preventing God from creating a baby by only having unitive and not procreative sex is okay

The problem that I can’t get past is, the criteria change depending on the situation. If you are using NFP, then preventing sperm and egg uniting by waiting until there is no egg is okay. But preventing this process artificially is not. Number 4 contradicts number 2, and is the reason why you hear other Catholics decry NFP as sinful.

Clearly, there is something in this teaching that distinguishes between “naturally” spacing children (NFP) versus artificially spacing children.

**So, maybe it will help to refocus the conversation on a specific question:

What, theologically, is the reason that artificially spacing children is a sin?**

I ask that answers be thoughtful and detailed, drawing upon theological and logical truths. This really is the crux of the conversation, and the more refined and focused the answers on this specific question, the easier I hope it will be.

Besides, you’re talking about trying to *correct *something that’s gone wrong with a person’s body. Contraception is an attempt to alter a body that’s already performing correctly.

There are many bald males that would take issue with you calling it something “wrong” to be “corrected”.

 

[cargau]

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.

The topic has been asked and answered, yet you persist in persuing this game of asking the same things over and over. I went over and reread the responses. The theological answers you sought are there. They are based on the teachings of the Church which is based on Sacred Scripture and guided by the Holy Spirit. If you don’t buy it fine, say so and move on. But, stop pretending its not there…

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. …

They may have a very good reason for delaying a pregnancy. It is clear that the intent of the couple is absolutely to prevent pregnancy. But, the couple takes it one step further…it also takes God’s will into account. No artificial, unnatural barrier has been deliberately established to shut God out. God made our bodies and we are simply working within the scope of his creation. So, while they may not desire a pregnancy at this time they are open to God and open to life…

I

f 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.
…

The “effectiveness” of the method has nothing to do with shutting God out or inviting him in…

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. …

True, but the point I was making is that sexual intercourse during infertile periods is never wrong.

I

f 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. …

Ah, but how would I know you could not attend? While I may hope that you are busy because I already have a full house, it is possible that your plans changed and you can attend afterall and of course, you would be most welcome! And when you arrived, rather than slamming and bolting the door, I would throw the door wide open and great you with a warm hug. That is what NFP does…

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

If I have misjudged you, please accept my apologies. Having read your responses, I suspect you are either a bit of a button pusher or you are really not interested in the response you sought…

 

[Alyosha13]

The topic has been asked and answered, yet you persist in persuing this game of asking the same things over and over. I went over and reread the responses. The theological answers you sought are there. They are based on the teachings of the Church which is based on Sacred Scripture and guided by the Holy Spirit. If you don’t buy it fine, say so and move on. But, stop pretending its not there…

The teachings are what I am questioning, and their basis in Scripture is thin. Reducing the rest to “it’s what the Holy Spirit guided, so deal with it” is unfortunate, the Holy Spirit has never acted arbitrarily before that I am aware of. I am optimistic that other attempts to continue the discussion will be more fruitful.

But, the couple takes it one step further…it also takes God’s will into account. No artificial, unnatural barrier has been deliberately established to shut God out.

This is a logical fallacy. It implies that those who use artificial methods do not take God’s will into account. It has been stated previously that the same can be true of people using NFP to bear no children.

If you are going to base an argument on the premise that using artificial means equates to ignoring God’s will, you will need to demonstrate clearly why this is the case.

True, but the point I was making is that sexual intercourse during infertile periods is never wrong.

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.

Ah, but how would I know you could not attend? While I may hope that you are busy because I already have a full house, it is possible that your plans changed and you can attend afterall and of course, you would be most welcome! And when you arrived, rather than slamming and bolting the door, I would throw the door wide open and great you with a warm hug. That is what NFP does…

The analogy is breaking down here. You know I cannot attend = sex during an infertile cycle. You know there will be no pregnancy. To fit your analogy, “changing plans” means the woman ovulates in the middle of an infertile cycle.

If I have misjudged you, please accept my apologies. Having read your responses, I suspect you are either a bit of a button pusher or you are really not interested in the response you sought…

Accepted, and if buttons were pushed, then I owe one as well. This is something that I am taking very seriously, and when it is something as crucial and important as human life and a physical relationship in marriage, it’s not to be taken lightly. I feel that too many people either say “Oh that’s what the NFP pamphlet said” or “Oh that stuff is silly” without actually bothering to fundamentally understand their decisions, and it is not a mistake in either direction that I want to make as well.

 

[mellestad]

cargau:

If I have misjudged you, please accept my apologies. Having read your responses, I suspect you are either a bit of a button pusher or you are really not interested in the response you sought…

This is what I was referring to earlier. Saying things like this is essentially a personal attack on 90% of the female Catholics in America and a very large percentage in Europe as well, and a non-trivial percentage in the rest of the world.

These questions are being asked, verbatim, by millions of ‘good’ Catholics all over the world. What are they all missing? Is the argument simply not rational and they need to accept the word of the church regardless, or is there a critical mis-communication somewhere?

If the former then the Church needs to make that crystal clear that this is a mandate straight from God and no-one has any right to disobey even if they don’t understand. If the latter, well, either those delivering the message can be humble and re-think what they are trying to say or you can keep pushing an edict most families are going to ignore and just accept it…but part of that process is coming to terms with the apparent inability for educated individuals to understand the message.

I’m not even speculating, those are just plain and simple facts the church faces. Right now it seems like there is a strong undercurrent of denial where anyone who doesn’t ‘get it’ must have faulty reasoning skills. I guess this could be the case, but if so that is still something the church has to come to terms with.

 

[Nita]

Originally Posted by Alyosha13
f 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. …

I like the “giving a party” analogy. However, to be complete it should include a depiction of ABC also.

If NFP can be compared to planning a party when a certain person most probably will not be in town/able to attend,
ABC can be compared to intervening in his life to physically prevent him from being able to attend. (eg. deflate the tires on his vehicle; injure him;…)

The goal in both instances is the same (having a party without a certain person present), but there’s a difference in the manner of how this end is pursued.

 

[cargau]

This is what I was referring to earlier. Saying things like this is essentially a personal attack on 90% of the female Catholics in America and a very large percentage in Europe as well, and a non-trivial percentage in the rest of the world.

These questions are being asked, verbatim, by millions of ‘good’ Catholics all over the world. What are they all missing? Is the argument simply not rational and they need to accept the word of the church regardless, or is there a critical mis-communication somewhere?

If the former then the Church needs to make that crystal clear that this is a mandate straight from God and no-one has any right to disobey even if they don’t understand. If the latter, well, either those delivering the message can be humble and re-think what they are trying to say or you can keep pushing an edict most families are going to ignore and just accept it…but part of that process is coming to terms with the apparent inability for educated individuals to understand the message.

I’m not even speculating, those are just plain and simple facts the church faces. Right now it seems like there is a strong undercurrent of denial where anyone who doesn’t ‘get it’ must have faulty reasoning skills. I guess this could be the case, but if so that is still something the church has to come to terms with.

Alyosha asked for a theological basis for allowing NFP while rejecting ABC. That question was answered ad nauseum. The problem, as I see it is that folks don’t particularily care for the reasons given since they invariably want reasons to pursue ABC. My response should not be offensive to anyone, just very direct. These are the reasons for the Church’s stance. Either accept it or reject it, but that’s what it is. Don’t try to beat it into the ground hoping to change the outcome, it is what it is…

The Church doesn’t provide teachings to please the populace. Rather, the Church, out of love leads the flock to do God’s will so that we may one day know the joy and peace of eternal life with God.

If it means including God in the bedroom, then that is how we should live. This mindset should permeate every phase and aspect of our lives not just marital relations.

St. Augustine speaking about the Eucharist once said, believe and you will understand. Perhaps, this is good advice for this topic. Sometimes, we need to be humble and trust Christ and His Church even though we don’t completely understand.

In the meantime, you are all in my prayers…

 

[Alyosha13]

I like the “giving a party” analogy. However, to be complete it should include a depiction of ABC also.

If NFP can be compared to planning a party when a certain person most probably will not be in town/able to attend,
ABC can be compared to intervening in his life to physically prevent him from being able to attend. (eg. deflate the tires on his vehicle; injure him;…)

The goal in both instances is the same (having a party without a certain person present), but there’s a difference in the manner of how this end is pursued.

You are just stating your previously stated opinion, but this time in the form of analogy rather than plain English. You aren’t explaining anything, just restating it differently. It doesn’t clarify anything you have said.

there’s a difference in the manner of how this end is pursued

You are claiming that one manner is sinful, and one is not. This is what I need clarification on. Why is it sinful?? Simply answering this by pointing out a difference does not answer the question, it just distinguishes between the two, which is redundant at this point.

I am asking you to take it a step further and clearly articulate why one manner (artificial in this case) is a sin.

 

[Alyosha13]

Alyosha asked for a theological basis for allowing NFP while rejecting ABC. That question was answered ad nauseum. The problem, as I see it is that folks don’t particularily care for the reasons given since they invariably want reasons to pursue ABC.

How do you know that I want a reason to pursue ABC? Why would you assume that intention into my questions?

The question was answered very differently by different people. The lack of consensus on this issue is one of the most confusing parts about it. Nobody has the same answer why the teaching exists.

I feel like you are being judgmental for my genuine attempts to fully understand the issue.

My response should not be offensive to anyone, just very direct. These are the reasons for the Church’s stance. Either accept it or reject it, but that’s what it is. Don’t try to beat it into the ground hoping to change the outcome, it is what it is…

This conversation is supposed to be an attempt to reveal the truth of what “it is”. If your contribution to this is to insist that the question has been answered sufficiently, there is no reason to participate at all anymore, and certainly no reason to disparage me based on what you are guessing I think.

The Church doesn’t provide teachings to please the populace. Rather, the Church, out of love leads the flock to do God’s will so that we may one day know the joy and peace of eternal life with God.

The Church is also charged to interpret and help guide the faithful in understanding Truth. This is not accomplished by saying “The conversation is over.”

If it means including God in the bedroom, then that is how we should live. This mindset should permeate every phase and aspect of our lives not just marital relations.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with my questions.

St. Augustine speaking about the Eucharist once said, believe and you will understand. Perhaps, this is good advice for this topic. Sometimes, we need to be humble and trust Christ and His Church even though we don’t completely understand.

In the meantime, you are all in my prayers…

I have heard much more clearly articulated and logical explanations of the Eucharist than I have of this topic.

The trend of attacking the motivations and character of the person who asks questions is very unfortunate, especially in a public forum for Catholic apologetics, no less.

 

[Nita]

You are just stating your previously stated opinion, but this time in the form of analogy rather than plain English. You aren’t explaining anything, just restating it differently. It doesn’t clarify anything you have said.

You are claiming that one manner is sinful, and one is not. This is what I need clarification on. Why is it sinful?? Simply answering this by pointing out a difference does not answer the question, it just distinguishes between the two, which is redundant at this point.

I am asking you to take it a step further and clearly articulate why one manner (artificial in this case) is a sin.

You’re the one that started the analogy - using analogy to make a point. I just completed what you started. (By the way, I don’t understand why it’s okay for you to use analogies to explain things, but others shouldn’t – but instead should “clearly articulate”.) I made no claims about sinfulness but just let the analogy stand on its own. I merely noted the methods differed. It appears however, that from the analogy you deduced that one of the methods was sinful. Why?

How would you include the ABC method in your analogy so the analogy gives a complete picture – one that includes both methods and portrays the difference between them?.

By the way, analogies are a great way to clarify difficult concepts. Our Lord used parables all the time. Aquinas uses analogies to get across many of his points – thank heavens, because many of them are difficult to grasp.

 

[mellestad]

Alyosha asked for a theological basis for allowing NFP while rejecting ABC. That question was answered ad nauseum. The problem, as I see it is that folks don’t particularily care for the reasons given since they invariably want reasons to pursue ABC. My response should not be offensive to anyone, just very direct. These are the reasons for the Church’s stance. Either accept it or reject it, but that’s what it is. Don’t try to beat it into the ground hoping to change the outcome, it is what it is…

The Church doesn’t provide teachings to please the populace. Rather, the Church, out of love leads the flock to do God’s will so that we may one day know the joy and peace of eternal life with God.

If it means including God in the bedroom, then that is how we should live. This mindset should permeate every phase and aspect of our lives not just marital relations.

St. Augustine speaking about the Eucharist once said, believe and you will understand. Perhaps, this is good advice for this topic. Sometimes, we need to be humble and trust Christ and His Church even though we don’t completely understand.

In the meantime, you are all in my prayers…

I think you are making assumptions about what people want. From watching Catholics on this board ask the question, to be it looks like all they want is an answer that makes sense to them.

If your response is, “Because God/the Church/the Pope said so, it doesn’t have to make sense” then that is fine, but people should just say that rather than attempt to provide lengthy attempts at rationalization that obviously fall short for most Catholics.

I have no personal interest in helping the Church change its stance on this issue either way, I am not Catholic and so it is not relevant. All I’m trying to do is point out what I see.

Honestly I’m not sure why I’m even trying to help. Call my effort an academic interest in communication and clarity, if that helps explain my motivation.

I’m more curious than anything else. I don’t think it makes sense to take anyone’s teachings on morality as de-facto truths, but I understand that Catholics do think this is appropriate and am offering my opinion from within that assumption.

 

[cargau]

How do you know that I want a reason to pursue ABC? Why would you assume that intention into my questions?

The question was answered very differently by different people. The lack of consensus on this issue is one of the most confusing parts about it. Nobody has the same answer why the teaching exists.

I feel like you are being judgmental for my genuine attempts to fully understand the issue.

This conversation is supposed to be an attempt to reveal the truth of what “it is”. If your contribution to this is to insist that the question has been answered sufficiently, there is no reason to participate at all anymore, and certainly no reason to disparage me based on what you are guessing I think.

The Church is also charged to interpret and help guide the faithful in understanding Truth. This is not accomplished by saying “The conversation is over.”

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with my questions.

I have heard much more clearly articulated and logical explanations of the Eucharist than I have of this topic.

The trend of attacking the motivations and character of the person who asks questions is very unfortunate, especially in a public forum for Catholic apologetics, no less.

1. You said and I quote, “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.” You drew the connection and have repeatedly asked why NFP and not ABC.
2. You are right. My judgement is that your aim is in more than just trying to understand the Church’s teaching. Again, If I am wrong, I apologize.
3. There are people who have responded who don’t care about the Church only their own perception of what is right and noble. Yes, there will be varying answers.
4. True, the Church is charged with guiding the faithful. That is why we have a catechism among other things. Once this has been explained, however, that should be it. If in conscience we cannot accept the teaching, OK deal with it and move on.
5. I have only commented on your motivations, not your character.
6. Catholic forum? Isn’t it a spiritual work of mercy to instruct the ignorant? What’s more Catholic than that? If you are implying that my comments make me seem that I am abrupt, well so was Padre Pio. Now, I am no Padre Pio, but directness and Catholicity are not necessarily mutually exclusive…

 

[Alyosha13]

You’re the one that started the analogy - using analogy to make a point. I just completed what you started. (By the way, I don’t understand why it’s okay for you to use analogies to explain things, but others shouldn’t – but instead should “clearly articulate”.)

To be clear, this party analogy began here:

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…

I made no claims about sinfulness but just let the analogy stand on its own. I merely noted the methods differed. It appears however, that from the analogy you deduced that one of the methods was sinful. Why?

I did not deduce it, it is the teaching of the Catholic church. I am trying to understand it.

How would you include the ABC method in your analogy so the analogy gives a complete picture – one that includes both methods and portrays the difference between them?.

It was cargau’s analogy, you would have to ask him. I recognize that you prefer to discuss this in analogy, but it is not helpful for me to gain an understanding of a very specific theological question that I have.

 

[Alyosha13]

1. You said and I quote, “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.” You drew the connection and have repeatedly asked why NFP and not ABC.

You attempted to ascertain my intentions from my hypothetical questions. That you chose to place your guess over my stated goal, to gain a theological understanding of NFP, is your own business.

None of this, however, has to do with answering my original question, which is why, very clearly, specifically with logical and theological reasoning presented to support it, artificial contraception is a sin.

If you feel it’s been answered, then happily there are many other threads for you to read. If you’d like to help try to explain it, that would be fantastic. But filling up space telling me to stop asking is unproductive and derails the conversation from the topic at hand.

 

[Nita]

To be clear, this party analogy began here:

My apologies. I didn’t go back far enough.

But, as I added to my previous post, analogies are a very good way to help convey points that are difficult to make understandable in plain English. And the party analogy is a very good one for demonstrating the difference between NFP and ABC.
By expanding it, even more differences could be portrayed – and be more easily comprehended.

 

[Alyosha13]

My apologies. I didn’t go back far enough.

But, as I added to my previous post, analogies are a very good way to help convey points that are difficult to make understandable in plain English. And the party analogy is a very good one for demonstrating the difference between NFP and ABC.
By expanding it, even more differences could be portrayed – and be more easily comprehended.

Also farther back, I said that I understand the difference in method (not the implications assumed from those differences), and that I wanted to refocus the conversation back to the initial question.

Further articulating differences does nothing to answer the question.

I think I am beating a dead horse at this point and it’s not worth continuing, unless anybody has something new to add.