Theological basis for NFP?

[ddarko]

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

As I said in my post #133, NFP is not really sinful. Abstaining from sex is really morally neutral.

Therefore it is the intention alone that makes the practice of NFP sinful or not. So when talking of NFP, intention plays the only role in determining the actions moral nature. In fact, it is actually a judgment of the couple’s intentions. If the intentions are wrong, regardless of what they practice, there is moral sin in the marriage.

When it comes to artificial contraception, there is sex involved. THEN, the improper nature of the sexual act it-self is what renders the act immoral. There is no need to even consider intentions anymore.

Does that clarify?

God Bless

 

[cc1999]

Does that clarify?

Thanks for your answer, but not quite.

There is the issue of the Catholic Church allowing performance of the marital act with the intent not to have children in certain circumstances. There is a logical problem with that, in the opinion of many, because it doesn’t appear Biblically based (at least no evidence has been provided so far).

 

[Em_in_FL]

As I said in my post #133, NFP is not really sinful. Abstaining from sex is really morally neutral.

Therefore it is the intention alone that makes the practice of NFP sinful or not. So when talking of NFP, intention plays the only role in determining the actions moral nature. In fact, it is actually a judgment of the couple’s intentions. If the intentions are wrong, regardless of what they practice, there is moral sin in the marriage.

When it comes to artificial contraception, there is sex involved. THEN, the improper nature of the sexual act it-self is what renders the act immoral. There is no need to even consider intentions anymore.

Does that clarify?

God Bless

I disagree… and so does the church.

From Humanae Vitae…

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

 

[ddarko]

I disagree… and so does the church.

From Humanae Vitae…

Thanks for your answer, but not quite.

There is the issue of the Catholic Church allowing performance of the marital act with the intent not to have children in certain circumstances. There is a logical problem with that, in the opinion of many, because it doesn’t appear Biblically based (at least no evidence has been provided so far).

Ok both of you missed what I meant.

I was merely pointing out that in the case of Artificial Contraception, regardless of the intention it is a MORAL SIN.

Why? Because the sexual act is now improper.

So I am just pointing out that intention does not weigh in when determining the morality of artificial contraception. The act it-self is immoral. This is 100% with what the Church teaches.

In the case of NFP however, one needs to evaluate intentions.

So there can be no debate why Artificial contraception is wrong and NFP is not. The above should lay that to rest.

What the question should be is under what intentions is NFP still morally neutral. Em_in_FL has provided some in the above post. As far as I can see, there is no reason to consider those criterion as unbiblical. I think those who think it is unbilical is once again making a false conclusion that NFP is just another form of contraception. That is, as shown above, false.

God Bless

 

[Persuader]

As I said in my post #133, NFP is not really sinful. Abstaining from sex is really morally neutral.

Therefore it is the intention alone that makes the practice of NFP sinful or not. So when talking of NFP, intention plays the only role in determining the actions moral nature. In fact, it is actually a judgment of the couple’s intentions. If the intentions are wrong, regardless of what they practice, there is moral sin in the marriage.

When it comes to artificial contraception, there is sex involved. THEN, the improper nature of the sexual act it-self is what renders the act immoral. There is no need to even consider intentions anymore.

Does that clarify?

I think anyone can understand that. What you are saying is that the moral issue with contraception lies in its manipulation of the sex-act itself. The issue for you is to explain why manipulation in itself is wrong. Remember, you cannot say it is wrong because of its consequences. For instance, you cannot say that manipulation is wrong because it hinders procreation since that is also accomplished by nfp. You have to say why it is wrong in itself, you cannot simply refer to those consequences that is equally mirrored in nfp. Let me illustrate the logic clearly: If you say A is wrong because it leads to C, and B equally leads to C, A and B must both be wrong.

Either manipulation of the sex act is wrong in itself, or it is wrong because of the consequences that follows from that manipulation. If the former is true, you have to explain why it is wrong without appealing to the consequences. If the latter is true, you need to state consequences unique to abc in order to escape conflating abc with nfp.

 

[ddarko]

I think anyone can understand that. What you are saying is that the moral issue with contraception lies in its manipulation of the sex-act itself. The issue for you is to explain why manipulation in itself is wrong. Remember, you cannot say it is wrong because of its consequences. For instance, you cannot say that manipulation is wrong because it hinders procreation since that is also accomplished by nfp. You have to say why it is wrong in itself, you cannot simply refer to those consequences that is equally mirrored in nfp. Let me illustrate the logic clearly: If you say A is wrong because it leads to C, and B equally leads to C, A and B must both be wrong.

Either manipulation of the sex act is wrong in itself, or it is wrong because of the consequences that follows from that manipulation. If the former is true, you have to explain why it is wrong without appealing to the consequences. If the latter is true, you need to state consequences unique to abc in order to escape conflating abc with nfp.

The answer is bolded above, manipulation of the sex act is wrong in itself. Please refer to post #133. I explain why its wrong without reference to consequence.

I reproduce it here for your perusal

I think you might have a serious misunderstanding on NFP. NFP is NOT a valid method of Contraception. On the contrary, it is just abstinence during fertile periods. So the there is nothing un-natural in it. A man and a woman freely choose not to have sex.

The artificial methods of contraception are a different story. It is about HAVING SEX and using something to prevent the conception. That is un-natural. Sex is sought after while not accepting the person in complete.

So let me explain in a different way. In NFP, you accept the spouse for who she is. Nothing is held back. The spouse is naturally infertile at that moment. Your free will to complete the sexual act during this period leaves no difference.

BUT, in artificial methods, one holds back, frustrates or suppresses the reproductive faculties. See the difference?

In the case of NFP, you are following God’s calendar. Your spouse is simply infertile at that time as God has created her. In artificial contraception, you are following your calendar i.e. I have sex whenever I want and I will just suppress/frustrate reproductive faculties of mine or hers.

That being said, NFP DOES become a **tool **of sin if done for wrong reasons. i.e. we just don’t want any kids etc. So in this case it is a sin not because of the sexual act or anything. It is a sin BECAUSE of the intention which violates the promise given in Marriage. Therefore regardless of NFP, the couple is now in sin.

God Bless

 

[cc1999]

The answer is bolded above, manipulation of the sex act is wrong in itself. Please refer to post #133. I explain why its wrong without reference to consequence.

Manipulation of the sex act occurs in both ABC and NFP. The difference is that one uses a barrier of some type, whereas the other does not.

That issue is secondary to the main issue, which is that both NFP and ABC are used with the specific intent to avoid having children.

 

[ddarko]

Manipulation of the sex act occurs in both ABC and NFP. The difference is that one uses a barrier of some type, whereas the other does not.

That issue is secondary to the main issue, which is that both NFP and ABC are used with the specific intent to avoid having children.

No there is NO manipulation of the sex act in NFP. What are you talking about?

Me choosing to not have sex with my wife right now and type this does not violate the sex act. To say so is rather absurd

If you think erroneously that NFP is just another form of contraception (just natural), then you obviously have a confusion in your logic. Your conclusions are thus erroneous.

God Bless

 

[Em_in_FL]

Ok both of you missed what I meant.

I was merely pointing out that in the case of Artificial Contraception, regardless of the intention it is a MORAL SIN.

Why? Because the sexual act is now improper.

So I am just pointing out that intention does not weigh in when determining the morality of artificial contraception. The act it-self is immoral. This is 100% with what the Church teaches.

In the case of NFP however, one needs to evaluate intentions.

So there can be no debate why Artificial contraception is wrong and NFP is not. The above should lay that to rest.

What the question should be is under what intentions is NFP still morally neutral. Em_in_FL has provided some in the above post. As far as I can see, there is no reason to consider those criterion as unbiblical. I think those who think it is unbilical is once again making a false conclusion that NFP is just another form of contraception. That is, as shown above, false.

God Bless

Thanks for the clarification… I agree.

 

[Persuader]

The answer is bolded above, manipulation of the sex act is wrong in itself. Please refer to post #133. I explain why its wrong without reference to consequence.

I reproduce it here for your perusal

NFP is NOT a valid method of Contraception. On the contrary, it is just abstinence during fertile periods. So the there is nothing un-natural in it. A man and a woman freely choose not to have sex.

The artificial methods of contraception are a different story. It is about HAVING SEX and using something to prevent the conception. That is un-natural. Sex is sought after while not accepting the person in complete.

So let me explain in a different way. In NFP, you accept the spouse for who she is. Nothing is held back. The spouse is naturally infertile at that moment. Your free will to complete the sexual act during this period leaves no difference.

BUT, in artificial methods, one holds back, frustrates or suppresses the reproductive faculties. See the difference?

In the case of NFP, you are following God’s calendar. Your spouse is simply infertile at that time as God has created her. In artificial contraception, you are following your calendar i.e. I have sex whenever I want and I will just suppress/frustrate reproductive faculties of mine or hers.

That being said, NFP DOES become a tool of sin if done for wrong reasons. i.e. we just don’t want any kids etc. So in this case it is a sin not because of the sexual act or anything. It is a sin BECAUSE of the intention which violates the promise given in Marriage. Therefore regardless of NFP, the couple is now in sin.

Right… so there is something inherently wrong with manipulating the body. Not because of what that manipulation accomplishes (that is, that it accomplishes prevention of pregnancy) but because it manipulates the body. Now, why is it wrong to manipulate the body? A basic contraception is condoms. Condoms doesn’t actually manipulate physiology, it functions by containing a fluid released from the body. So, what exactly is wrong here? Remember, you cannot say it is wrong because it hinders procreation, since that is also accomplished with nfp. You could possibly say that God sees something inherently valuable in sex being done a certain way, but what reason do you have for thinking that?

 

[cc1999]

No there is NO manipulation of the sex act in NFP. What are you talking about?

The only reason why NFP exists in the first place is to time cycles. That timing can be used to either attempt to have or attempt to avoid having children. The issue under discussion is to not have children, which according to the Church is sinful except under very specific circumstances.

Me choosing to not have sex with my wife right now and type this does not violate the sex act. To say so is rather absurd

Is that sex specifically timed and ordered toward not having children?

If you think erroneously that NFP is just another form of contraception (just natural), then you obviously have a confusion in your logic. Your conclusions are thus erroneous.

We’re arguing semantics. I understand the difference between a barrier and not barrier, but that is not the crux of the issue…it is secondary.

I repeat…the main issue deals with intent. The Church most certainly understands this issue, which is exactly why NFP is not permitted except under very specific circumstances. Where did this distinction in intent, allowing it in some circumstances and not others, arise?

 

[ddarko]

Right… so there is something inherently wrong with manipulating the body. Not because of what that manipulation accomplishes (that is, that it accomplishes prevention of pregnancy) but because it manipulates the body. Now, why is it wrong to manipulate the body? A basic contraception is condoms. Condoms doesn’t actually manipulate physiology, it functions by containing a fluid released from the body. So, what exactly is wrong here? Remember, you cannot say it is wrong because it hinders procreation, since that is also accomplished with nfp. You could possibly say that God sees something inherently valuable in sex being done a certain way, but what reason do you have for thinking that?

I am not sure you understood. It is not just the manipulation of the body. It is the violation of how sex should be.

Now once again, you don’t need to remind me that I can’t say certain things

So sex is a relationship between persons. This is defined a certain way for Roman Catholics which is based on Scripture and Tradition. Thus, the sexual act must be a complete giving of one spouse to another. An artificial manipulation or not allowing fluid exchange is considered to violate this. Because after all, then the spouse is saying, I will have sex with you now but I don’t like how your reproductive system is going to behave now. So I will wear a condom, or you will take a pill etc. That is considered as rejecting part of the person.

In the case of NFP, the spouse is simply naturally infertile at the time. So at the time of sex, the couple is not holding anything back.

Let me point something out to you now my good friend. I noticed that your religious view is “Spiritual”. So your starting axioms might be different. For you, what it means for a couple to have sex can mean something entirely different from Catholic teachings. Thus your conclusions might be very off.

If that is the case, what you should be doing is researching in to why your beliefs are different from Catholic ones. Otherwise to keep asking me why why why is at one point going to be moot. After we I hit Scripture and Tradition, your question WHY is just going to be answered through those. They would not satisfy you since you do not accept them as true.

Again, I thought I would give you the heads up before you start going down that road.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

The only reason why NFP exists in the first place is to time cycles. That timing can be used to either attempt to have or attempt to avoid having children. The issue under discussion is to not have children, which according to the Church is sinful except under very specific circumstances.

Yes, here you are talking of intentions. NOT sex. Keep that in mind. This is where you are going wrong. We only talk of intentions when we talk of NFP. When we talk of ABC’s we are talking of the proper practice of the sexual act.

We’re arguing semantics. I understand the difference between a barrier and not barrier, but that is not the crux of the issue…it is secondary.

Quiet the contrary, you are stuck in semantics.

NFP deals with whether I have sex now or abstain. ABC deals with having sex and not conceiving. If you don’t see the difference and think thats just semantics, well I am afraid you might be beyond my help.

I repeat…the main issue deals with intent. The Church most certainly understands this issue, which is exactly why NFP is not permitted except under very specific circumstances. Where did this distinction in intent, allowing it in some circumstances and not others, arise?

NOPE. ABC has nothing to do with intent. It is this form of erroneous thinking that leads Catholics to equate NFP as a method of contraception. If it was truly about intent, then one must rightly question the validity of NFP. Unfortunately(or fortunately), intention has nothing to do with why ABC’s are wrong. It simply violates the sexual act.

God Bless

 

[cc1999]

Yes, here you are talking of intentions. NOT sex. Keep that in mind. This is where you are going wrong. We only talk of intentions when we talk of NFP. When we talk of ABC’s we are talking of the proper practice of the sexual act.

The sexual act is a physical manifestation of the intention. That is exactly why in and of itself both ABC and NFP are sinful; both acts are ordered toward not having children. The Church, in fact, agrees that NFP is sinful if it is ordered toward not having children. That is, unless certain specific conditions are met.

If that is the case, what you should be doing is researching in to why your beliefs are different from Catholic ones.

That is exactly why I am here.

Unfortunately, I’m not receiving an answer, and honestly don’t expect one. The OP didn’t get one either. Typically this happens when there is a disconnect between source and application. In other words, I’m assuming that the answer is not explicit in the Bible, but rather in the manner the Church chose to interpret the Bible (and possibly other sources). If I’m misguided, I am, as always, willing to be corrected.

 

[ddarko]

The sexual act is a physical manifestation of the intention. That is exactly why in and of itself both ABC and NFP are sinful; both acts are ordered toward not having children. The Church, in fact, agrees that NFP is sinful if it is ordered toward not having children. That is, unless certain specific conditions are met.

I am afraid you are confused with too much information.

First, NFP is judged by intention. That is clear and I’ve pointed out why. In NFP there is no sexual act. Got it?

Second, ABC’s are judged as IMMORAL because they violate the sexual act. Period. There is no need for intention. YES, intention might also be their but the fact that ABC’s violate the sexual act renders it IMMORAL. So even if someone has good intentions, ABC’s are WRONG.

Do you see the above?

That is exactly why I am here.

Unfortunately, I’m not receiving an answer, and honestly don’t expect one. The OP didn’t get one either. Typically this happens when there is a disconnect between source and application. In other words, I’m assuming that the answer is not explicit in the Bible, but rather in the manner the Church chose to interpret the Bible (and possibly other sources). If I’m misguided, I am, as always, willing to be corrected.

You are receiving answers but you are choosing to look at it from your own perspective that NFP is just a form of contraception. That is WRONG. Read what I said above.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

That is exactly why I am here.

Sorry I missed this before.

Oh then you are in the wrong thread. You need to go to a thread that discusses why the sexual act is defined a certain way in Roman Catholic teachings. This comes from Theology and Philosophy and I am sure it has been discussed before on this Forums. If not, just open a new thread.

The question in the OP is about whether NFP is theological. So this already assumes that we are discussing within the Roman Catholic framework.

God Bless

 

[Persuader]

I am not sure you understood. It is not just the manipulation of the body. It is the violation of how sex should be.

Now once again, you don’t need to remind me that I can’t say certain things

So sex is a relationship between persons. This is defined a certain way for Roman Catholics which is based on Scripture and Tradition. Thus, the sexual act must be a complete giving of one spouse to another. An artificial manipulation or not allowing fluid exchange is considered to violate this. Because after all, then the spouse is saying, I will have sex with you now but I don’t like how your reproductive system is going to behave now. So I will wear a condom, or you will take a pill etc. That is considered as rejecting part of the person.

In the case of NFP, the spouse is simply naturally infertile at the time. So at the time of sex, the couple is not holding anything back.

Let me point something out to you now my good friend. I noticed that your religious view is “Spiritual”. So your starting axioms might be different. For you, what it means for a couple to have sex can mean something entirely different from Catholic teachings. Thus your conclusions might be very off.

If that is the case, what you should be doing is researching in to why your beliefs are different from Catholic ones. Otherwise to keep asking me why why why is at one point going to be moot. After we I hit Scripture and Tradition, your question WHY is just going to be answered through those. They would not satisfy you since you do not accept them as true.

Again, I thought I would give you the heads up before you start going down that road.

God Bless

It is true that I am not catholic, but my wife is. My interest in this question stems from my inability to rationally come to terms with the practice of nfp. I have some knowledge on this subject as a result of previous discussion and research of this issue. Now, I notice that you admit that sex is supposed to be done a certain way, and that it is wrong to do it in a different way. Your explanation for why it is so seems to be twofold.

First you say that condoms are wrong because it says that I will have sex with you right now, but because I don’t like the possible consequences, I will decrease the likelihood that sex leads to those consequences by introducing a barrier. I am rejecting a part of the person by trying to circumvent those consequences. Forget about the sense of saying that condoms reject part of the person, and consider a nfp-couple in the exact same situation. That is to say, a time when the female is actually fertile. They both want to have sex, and instead of putting on a condom, the husband says : “no, I reject every part of you, not only your fertility but our shared ability to give each other pleasure, intimacy, comfort and love.”

To say that in the case of nfp, the spouse is simply infertile at the time, implies that the spouse is infertile whenever the couple would like to have sex. Imagine a couple that practices the methods taught by nfp while simultaneously having sex with a condom during the fertile period. What is the difference? The difference is this: when they both want to have sex during the fertile period, they use a condom and accept some parts of each other instead of not sharing each other at all.

Secondly, you refer to tradition and scripture. I happen to know the only bible passage vaguely related to this, and that is the story of Anon. I am happy to have a discussion about how the story of Anon is able to differentiate between nfp and condoms, because I am quite sure that it cannot do this.

 

[ddarko]

First you say that condoms are wrong because it says that I will have sex with you right now, but because I don’t like the possible consequences, I will decrease the likelihood that sex leads to those consequences by introducing a barrier. I am rejecting a part of the person by trying to circumvent those consequences. Forget about the sense of saying that condoms reject part of the person, and consider a nfp-couple in the exact same situation. That is to say, a time when the female is actually fertile. They both want to have sex, and instead of putting on a condom, the husband says : “no, I reject every part of you, not only your fertility but our shared ability to give each other pleasure, intimacy, comfort and love.”

Come on. I thought this was pretty easy stuff that you will be able to realize whats wrong here.

If there is no sex, the rules on sex do not apply. This is simple stuff and you yourself claimed that anyone could understand that.

So what you are speaking of where the couple abstain, there is no sex taking place. So giving one self completely to the other really doesn’t apply here. Do you see the absurdity in the example you just gave?

As an aside though, in a situation where one person is desires to have a sexual union with the other and is denied, the denying spouse may be guilty of a different moral sin. But thats outside of this topic.

To say that in the case of nfp, the spouse is simply infertile at the time, implies that the spouse is infertile whenever the couple would like to have sex. Imagine a couple that practices the methods taught by nfp while simultaneously having sex with a condom during the fertile period. What is the difference? The difference is this: when they both want to have sex during the fertile period, they use a condom and accept some parts of each other instead of not sharing each other at all.

Once again, the above example is a false dilemma. You are applying rules of sex to cases where there is no sex taking place.

In this example, you are continuing this line of thought as NFP being another form of contraception. So the conclusions while logically consistent with your assumptions is ultimately WRONG.

Secondly, you refer to tradition and scripture. I happen to know the only bible passage vaguely related to this, and that is the story of Anon. I am happy to have a discussion about how the story of Anon is able to differentiate between nfp and condoms, because I am quite sure that it cannot do this.

You are once again showing your ineptitude here at Scripture and Tradition. So much so that you completely forgot Tradition . Now you are welcome to open a new thread to discuss why the Catholic church defines the sex act the way it does. Mind you, there is philosophical foundations as well and people far capable than me will gladly accept your challenge to explain that. BUT, this is not the thread. In this thread, we assume that we are within the Roman Catholic theological framework already.

So as I said, open a new thread, and people will answer you

God Bless

 

[Persuader]

Come on. I thought this was pretty easy stuff that you will be able to realize whats wrong here.

If there is no sex, the rules on sex do not apply. This is simple stuff and you yourself claimed that anyone could understand that.

So what you are speaking of where the couple abstain, there is no sex taking place. So giving one self completely to the other really doesn’t apply here. Do you see the absurdity in the example you just gave?

The rule of sex you stated said that a certain act of sex was wrong because of its consequence of decreasing the likelihood of conception. Complete joining of the couple was frustrated because of this decrease in likelihood. If this is not the case, then you need to give an alternative way that condoms frustrates the joining. That is to say, that the joining is not frustrated by the function of decreasing likelihood of conception, but by some other means. Given that you cannot to this, your rule of sex referred to consequences after all.

Now, in a given situation where sex is desired by the couple practicing nfp, the couple have decided not to have sex because the female is fertile. In that specific situation, you would be rejecting the fertility of the female by not having sex. To say that it is only wrong to reject the fertility of the female by manipulating the act, suggests that it is not the rejection of fertility that is the problem with the act, but something different about the act. So is it something different about the act, or is it not? If it isn’t, why would rejection of fertility only be a problem if it is a part of an act of sex? The point of my previous post was to try to kick-start your intuitions about how strange it is to make this distinction. If you don’t like that a fertile couple rejects fertility, why would the method matter? And again, you cannot simply say that the method matters because it decreases the likelihood of conception, since that consequence is even more apparent if you don’t have sex during the fertile period at all (it would also be circular reasoning).

You are once again showing your ineptitude here at Scripture and Tradition. So much so that you completely forgot Tradition . Now you are welcome to open a new thread to discuss why the Catholic church defines the sex act the way it does. Mind you, there is philosophical foundations as well and people far capable than me will gladly accept your challenge to explain that. BUT, this is not the thread. In this thread, we assume that we are within the Roman Catholic theological framework already.

Except tradition needs to be substantiated by scripture, or do you consider something to be right just because it is tradition? We are discussing what the theological basis for nfp is, which is covered by the topic of the thread.

 

[cc1999]

First, NFP is judged by intention. That is clear and I’ve pointed out why. In NFP there is no sexual act. Got it?

Not quite…If in NFP there is no sexual act, there is no need for NFP. In NFP, there is in fact a sexual act, ordered to having sex at a specific time with the intent of not having children. This is, of course, a sin, according to the Catholic Church.

The Church has allowed exceptions, which in the opinion of many is illogical and without Scriptural basis, and which is the reason this thread exists in the first place.

Can you provide Scriptural basis for this distinction that the Church has made, or does it not exist???