Theological basis for NFP?

[ddarko]

What is interesting about this line of logic is that if there is no just reason for avoiding pregnancy (or not having children), then the intent is neither moral or neutral; it is immoral. My focus is on this “intent” portion of the above. The Church and I happen to agree on most of it. What I don’t understand is the basis for the “just reason.” It seems to be inferred rather than explicit.

OTOH, others (including yourself) are focusing on “the object.” That would be a separate discussion of above moral argument noted in CC1750. I can understand your point regarding that. However, just because your point on “the object” may be valid does not make the issue pertaining to Scriptural support for the other part of the moral argument, “intent,” go away. If the object is moral, but the intent is immoral, then it is still immoral.

The key word is “IF”. Unfortunately, there IS JUST REASON.

Once again this is your problem. You seem to be under the impression that Intentions to not have children is ALWAYS IMMORAL. That is FALSE. I gave you the Scriptural example of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She abstained from sex all her life inside of marriage. She is was without any sin.

Now forgive me for reminding you again but this is the line of thinking that lead you to equate NFP and ABC’s. Because for you, it seemed like intent to have kids and not have kids was what separated the two.

On the contrary, in that sense, NFP and ABC are similar. They both have intention to not have kids. BUT ABC are different because it violates the sex act of completely giving oneself to the other. In NFP there is no such violation of the sex act because no sex takes place.

So now you need to realize what is meant by ‘intent’ matters in NFP. Here the intent does not refer to whether ‘one wants to have children’ or ‘one doesn’t want to have children’. Quiet obviously, the person who practice NFP as raised in this thread (some do to conceive) is about avoiding conception by abstinence. So what is referred to by intention is whether there is a VALID reasons for the intention to not have children. For an example, the couple who wants to postpone having a child because they didn’t save up for the new Porsche they want to buy has an IMMORAL intent. On the other hand, the couple that wants to avoid conceiving because they can’t even get by themselves and barely surviving is MORAL.

So if you really think about it deep though, the 2nd couple above is actually open to children. Given the circumstance, they just can’t support one and thus have made a reasonable choice not to.

Now your idea that this is all inference is meaningless. The MORAL justification for ‘not having kids at a certain time’ comes from the teachings of MORAL responsibility of parents to children and dignity of life. There is ample scriptural evidence for Human Dignity and Parent’s responsibility to their children. So once again, you are looking in the wrong spot for your answers.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Darko,
Sorry to interrupt this discussion. I believe that you are having a little difficulty because you have 2 different conversations happening.

In the first, Persuader is asking why the act of marriage is violated in ABC. The question there seems to me to be, “Please explain how the act is violated in ABC, without using the idea of it being contraceptive.” I request the idea, “without it being contraceptive” because contraception is an intent to Persuader. So, to say, “the partners aren’t giving themselves completely to each other because they are withholding their fertility” really says, “they want to avoid conception.” If one argues that it the problem is the lack of willingness to accept conception, then that argument really is not about the physical part of the act, but it is about the intent. The challenge from Persuader is to explain the violation without talking about intent.

So, these are the 2 conversations. I am looking forward to further explanation of #1, because I still don’t get it, even though I suffered through a 400+ post thread on the same topic last year.

XinMinny

Oh I see. Ok so the confusion I believe hinges on ‘what’ violates the sex act here.

In the case of the sex act, it is considered about accepting the person completely and giving one self completely. Now this means that at the moment of sex, the participating couple holds nothing back. They present themselves as they are.

In the case of ABC’s the couple will be rejecting parts of the other spouse. They would be rejecting fertility while still having sex.

So the difference here is that in ABC, one performs the sex act incorrectly. The IMMORALITY is in the violation of the sex act. The spouse is not naturally infertile at the moment of sex. The other person has not embraced the fact that the spouse’s fertility at that time but he pursues sex. So him doing so within the sex act is equivalent rejects part of the spouse.

Note: It does not make much sense to speak of rejection outside of the sex act or when sex does not take place. Embracing fertility or infertility of the spouse is only possible inside of the sex act. How does one embrace the fertility of the spouse or infertility of the spouse outside of sex anyway?

In NFP, there is no sex act. So there is no rejection involved. For what does it mean to reject the fertility of the spouse within the sex act if one is not engaged in the sex act anyway. One thing to note though is that NFP does accept the fertility of the spouse in an implicit sense. It simply choose to respect this natural condition of the spouse and refrain from sex. Because to accept the spouse in sex without accepting her fertility is not a proper expression of love.

So in a sense the question is actually about having proper sex and not about children. Sex is proper only when the person accepts the spouse as she is in that moment in time. If she is infertile at the time, there is nothing immoral about it and that should be embraced.

You also make a good point.

“If one argues that it the problem is the lack of willingness to accept conception, then that argument really is not about the physical part of the act, but it is about the intent.”

Very correct. But it is not about willingness to not accept conception. It is about the acceptance of spouses body and their natural mechanisms as I explained above. Because when we talk about ABC’s we are talking within the sex act. So things apply differently than with NFP.

I also made a post to cc1999 about what is referred to as “intention” when we speak of NFP :-

So now you need to realize what is meant by ‘intent’ matters in NFP. Here the intent does not refer to whether ‘one wants to have children’ or ‘one doesn’t want to have children’. Quiet obviously, the person who practice NFP as raised in this thread (some do to conceive) is about avoiding conception by abstinence. So what is referred to by intention is whether there is a VALID reasons for the intention to not have children. For an example, the couple who wants to postpone having a child because they didn’t save up for the new Porsche they want to buy has an IMMORAL intent. On the other hand, the couple that wants to avoid conceiving because they can’t even get by themselves and barely surviving is MORAL.

So if you really think about it deep though, the 2nd couple above is actually open to children. Given the circumstance, they just can’t support one and thus have made a reasonable choice not to. If they could support, they would.

Let me know if it still seems unclear

God Bless

 

[mellestad]

Because with NFP, the barrier is God made and with ABC, it is the man and woman who will to remove God’s freedom with their own barrier.

This is not about God overcoming the desire to defer childbearing. It is about keeping God’s participation in its place as it relates to his own creative design and not taking man made steps to keep God out.

So it would be safe to say then, the reason is simply because God says so, rather than there being any actual reason for the differentiation?

 

[mellestad]

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.

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.

This is my impression. There is one side interpreting ABC methods as wrong and the other side interpreting NFP as permissible under certain circumstances. What has not happened is the Church agreeing that those same circumstances apply in both cases.

Would this be something the Church could reverse, and eventually apply the same reasoning so things make sense, or are they painted into a corner because of older edicts?

 

[Em_in_FL]

So it would be safe to say then, the reason is simply because God says so, rather than there being any actual reason for the differentiation?

It isn’t because God “said so”… more like it’s because it’s an INSULT to the very CREATOR of that very Sacramental act in the first place. He created it perfectly and saw that His creation was “good”. Instead, contraception consider this design “bad” and something to “work against”… something that needs to be fixed. But why fix something that isn’t broken.

 

[Persuader]

Condoms simply VIOLATE the nature of the sexual act. i.e. when a couple is naturally fertile, it prevents them from conceiving while still having sex. Get it?

NFP poses no such problem. It is simply abstinence really. All that matters in the case of NFP is intention. To embrace your view is rather absurd too since it would mean that every moment I am not having sex with my wife is a sin.

ABC’s are wrong because it is within the sexual act.

Let me make it as clear as can be. You say that contraception violate the nature of the sexual act. I am asking you how it is a violation. You say it is a violation because it decreases likelihood of conception. So, the violation consists in decreasing the likelihood of conception. Furthermore, you say that decreasing the likelihood of conception is only wrong if it’s done by manipulating the sex-act as it is performed at some point in time. It is not wrong if it’s done by elaborate research and planning to make sure that every sex-act you have is performed at some point in time where the female is infertile. Notice here that manipulation of the sex-act cannot necessitate that a contraceptive action is taken during the sex-act. It only means that you take some action or actions at any time to manipulate your subsequent sex acts (Implanon can be an example).

Now, consider the word manipulate. It means to adapt or change something to suit ones purposes. Under this definition, nfp adapts or changes the timing of your sex-acts to decrease the likelihood of conception, whereas abc changes or adapts your body to decrease the likelihood of conception. Both methods are forms of manipulation according to the given definition. To state that nfp is no manipulation at all because it doesn’t manipulate physiology or release of bodily fluid, is simply mistaken. To state that only some forms of manipulation is wrong, is begging the question.

So, to move forward, it simply has to be the case that abc is wrong, not only because it decreases the likelihood of conception by manipulation, but because of the manner in which it is accomplished. It is something bad about manipulating in certain ways. What I think most abc-using Catholics wants to know is, why? Why is one method better than the others? Why is it bad to manipulate in some ways, but not others? It is in answer to this that you cannot simply say that abc is wrong because it decreases the likelihood of conception, since decreasing the likelihood of conception is not a sin if you use nfp. This would be the faulty reasoning I am speaking of. The claim is that decreasing the likelihood of conception becomes as sin if and only if conjoined with abc.

So, what exactly produces the sin? Does god become offended if he notices some specific kinds of manipulation? Where in the bible does it say so? Why does he prefer some kinds over others? Are the people involved harmed by using abc, but not by using nfp? Who or what is being harmed or offended by the use of abc? Put simply, what is the problem?

PS: to embrace my view would not result in it being a sin not to have sex all the time. Embracing my view would only result in make it a sin not to have sex with the intention of decreasing the likelihood of conception.

What on earth are you talking about? I’ve been having this kind of view on Tradition been mentioned few times now by people who are “non-Catholics”. Now this is not the thread to give you a lesson on Tradition and there are other thread that do that. In brief, Tradition tells you HOW to INTERPRET scripture. To say that Tradition must be substantiated by Scripture is meaningless nonsense.

Right, but you claimed that I forgot to mention tradition when speaking of scripture, implying that I had to comment on tradition separately. Now you say that tradition simply gives you a way to understand scripture, in which case it didn’t make sense to say that I forgot about tradition. Just because my interpretation of scripture might be different than the traditional one, wouldn’t imply that I forgot about the traditional interpretation. What I meant by saying that tradition needs to be substantiated by scripture, was simply that a given argument cannot be supported by tradition alone. At the least it needs to show why tradition is right in light of scripture.

 

[mellestad]

Something I must add to both CC1999 and Persuader,

You both might be under the impression that a couple practicing NFP to not have kids makes it automatically an IMMORAL intention. THAT IS FALSE.

If a couple is going through hardships, unable to support a child, then the intention to not have children is MORAL. It is a moral RESPONSIBILITY of the couple.

On the other hand, a couple who chooses to not have kids because they are on a materialistic craze is IMMORAL.

Now as you can see, the above intentions are somewhat personal and really between God and the couple. It is like trying to judge if a person is in love with someone or lusting.

But in the case of ABC, by default it is IMMORAL since it violates the sexual act of giving each other completely. So even the couple who is undergoing hardships MAY NOT USE ABC’s to prevent conception.

So it boils down to what I’ve been saying,

NFP: Abstinence. Morally neutral.

ABC: IMMORAL since it violates sexual act.

Conclusion: NFP can be practiced with right intentions. ABC’s are IMMORAL no matter WHAT the intention.

Maybe this line of thought will make it clear for you. This is the only thing that I can think of as being a stumbling block to see the difference between NFP and ABC.

So I hope this clarified.

God Bless

So if a couple practicing NFP for the allowed reasons uses a condom during the proscribed time to make things ‘extra’ safe, that would be OK then, right?

 

[Em_in_FL]

So if a couple practicing NFP for the allowed reasons uses a condom during the proscribed time to make things ‘extra’ safe, that would be OK then, right?

Ummm, no.
The fact that it lowers the chance of conception isn’t relevant.
It’s wrong because it dissociates the unitive from the procreative aspects of sex.

 

[mellestad]

Except with NFP, couples leave a physical pathway open for the union of male and female seed. Contraception attempts to do the opposite. That is a physical difference between the two.

Catholics believe in a God who cannot be thwarted. The “involvement of our deity” in sex is purely for our benefit.

Don’t forget the physical difference between NFP and contraception. From a Catholic standpoint, contraceptives break that ritual by disregarding God’s physical design for sex.

I think you are saying you agree with this then?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I think you are saying you agree with this then?

“God’s design” for marital relations includes both the unitive and procreative aspects… His design was “good”.

Contraception dissociates those aspects and insults the Creator of that “good” design.
Contraception causes something that is healthy and working correctly to be “broken”… it tears apart those aspects.

 

[Em_in_FL]

NFP is considered moral because it falls within “God’s design”… the fact that women have a fertility cycle that goes through periods of fertility and infertility all fall within that “good” design.

But, the decision to take recourse to only the infertile phases requires just/serious/well-formed reasoning. It cannot be done for selfish/vain reasons.

 

[Persuader]

Ummm, no.
The fact that it lowers the chance of conception isn’t relevant.
It’s wrong because it dissociates the unitive from the procreative aspects of sex.

What is the procreative aspect of sex? The procreative aspect of sex refers to the reproductive potential of the act. So, that means that a given act of sex retains the procreative aspect if there exist some reproductive potential. Unless abc is 100% effective, it doesn’t eliminate the reproductive potential. Thus it would not eliminate the procreative aspect of sex either, unless you want to say that an act can have reproductive potential without being procreative. And that doesn’t make sense.

 

[Em_in_FL]

What is the procreative aspect of sex? The procreative aspect of sex refers to the reproductive potential of the act. So, that means that a given act of sex retains the procreative aspect if there exist some reproductive potential. Unless abc is 100% effective, it doesn’t eliminate the reproductive potential. Thus it would not eliminate the procreative aspect of sex either, unless you want to say that an act can have reproductive potential without being procreative. And that doesn’t make sense.

Those who are infertile can still have “procreative” sex.
The word “procreative” is an adjective that is describing the ACT of sex, not the fertility of those participating.
Go back to my first post on this thread… here… for more details on that.

 

[Persuader]

Those who are infertile can still have “procreative” sex.
The word “procreative” is an adjective that is describing the ACT of sex, not the fertility of those participating.

How does that make sense? If a couple is 100% infertile, then there can be no potential for reproduction. If there is no potential for reproduction, there is nothing procreative about it. What kind of procreation is retained by an infertile couple? It doesn’t solve anything to say that it is an adjective describing the act of sex, since that would still relate to whether or not the act did in fact have reproductive potential. If you say a man is black, that is an adjective about that man. He still needs to be black, just as the couple still needs to be fertile to have procreative sex.

 

[Em_in_FL]

How does that make sense? If a couple is 100% infertile, then there can be no potential for reproduction. If there is no potential for reproduction, there is nothing procreative about it. What kind of procreation is retained by an infertile couple? It doesn’t solve anything to say that it is an adjective describing the act of sex, since that would still relate to whether or not the act did in fact have reproductive potential. If you say a man is black, that is an adjective about that man. He still needs to be black, just as the couple still needs to be fertile to have procreative sex.

They don’t have to “procreate” (infertile couples have moral relations, no?), they simply need to respect the design of the act.
Procreative describes the word sex.

 

[Good_Daughter]

The sexual act is a physical manifestation of the intention.

If that’s true, what’s the intention of a married couple who have sex during pergnancy.

Can we differentiate between the infertility caused by pregnancy, breastfeeding, menopause and normal cycles?

Where is the Scriptural basis that a couple may chose to have sex with the specific intent not to have children, such as during infertile periods, in some circumstances and not others. The Church makes this distinction, not me. Did Christ really say, or imply, this?

Where is the scriptural basis that a couple may not choose to have sex intending not to have children? Would you clarify what distinction the Church makes and where it makes this distinction? Thanks.

 

[Persuader]

They don’t have to “procreate” (infertile couples have moral relations, no?), they simply need to respect the design of the act.
Procreative describes the word sex.

Of course they don’t have to procreate. They can’t procreate. And that is actually all that needs to be said.

Procreative doesn’t describe the word sex unless there is something procreative about the sex. If sex weren’t procreative, to say it was procreative wouldn’t describe sex, now would it? And again, for a given act to be procreative, it needs to have a potential for reproduction.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Of course they don’t have to procreate. They can’t procreate. And that is actually all that needs to be said.

Procreative doesn’t describe the word sex unless there is something procreative about the sex. If sex weren’t procreative, to say it was procreative wouldn’t describe sex, now would it? And again, for a given act to be procreative, it needs to have a potential for reproduction.

Yes, the ACT must be done in a way that is “capable of reproduction”. Infertile people (both permanently and periodically) can still do the ACT in a WAY (in crude terms, the husband must complete inside the wife without taking action to reduce the chances of procreation on their own accord) that is procreative.

 

[PassingThru]

Em, you are back at it again!

Here is the problem. The Church does NOT use the same word that we are reading in the dictionary. Here is what I posted to Em a few weeks ago:

***Even if a woman is 100%, completely positive she is infertile at the time, the sex is “procreative”, meaning the sex act itself is “capable” or producing a child, even though in reality, it will never do so.

In the morning, a woman takes her pill, and she is 98% certain she is infertile. She has sex, which is capable of producing a child. This is not procreative, even though it can produce a child.

Procreative, by the worlds definition, defines that sex must be capable or reproducing, or capable of procreation. Now, if you want to sell the idea that the first one is procreative, than the second one absolutely, positively is.

The ONLY way it is different, is if you tack on all the further restrictions NOT present in the common definition, only present in the Church.

Can we agree to this? ***

You agreed to the above statement. This “alteration” of a common definition is what causes a huge disagreement. You have to start there…

 

[Persuader]

Yes, the ACT must be done in a way that is “capable of reproduction”. Infertile people (both permanently and periodically) can still do the ACT in a WAY (in crude terms, the husband must complete inside the wife without taking action to reduce the chances of procreation on their own accord) that is procreative.

How can an act be done in a way that is capable of reproduction without actually being capable of reproduction? That is what you are claiming, and it’s blatantly absurd.

In any case, unless abc is 100% effective, it is capable of reproduction, and the procreative aspect would be retained according to what you have said yourself.