What do we do when there are too many people on the planet?

[Rau]

they are condemning us unnatural interference with our sexual nature becuase sex involves the potential production of new life…

The church condemns changing the inherent nature of the marital act. It is designed with multiple aspects - the unitive and the procreative - which our nature binds together. The church says it is wrong to tear them apart. The pill does that, NFP does not.

 

[IWantGod]

But then isn’t NFP just a loophole to what would otherwise be wrong? Are you not saying that NFP is okay because its not our fault that a women happens to not be fertile at some point?

 

[Rau]

I claim that NFP is contraceptive as the word is defined by virtually anyone not ideologically inclined to tamper with the definition.

Feel free to suggest the church find a better word. However, that will have no effect on the line she draws between the moral and the immoral. Then you can focus on whether you agree with the line drawn where it is, rather than the meaning of a word.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I claim that NFP is contraceptive as the word is defined by virtually anyone not ideologically inclined to tamper with the definition.

Then you can focus on whether you agree with the line drawn where it is, rather than the meaning of a word.

That’s what were ultimately trying to do, Rau. But we have to use words to do that.

The Church declares that contraception is wrong because it separates the unitive and procreative.

But NFP attempts to do this very thing… I’ve just yet to see an explanation the reconciles the contradiction in a rational way.

I’ve seen lots that do it in an emotional way, though.

 

[Rau]

But, beyond the fact of it being unnatural, why is it wrong to use a condom. why does the sperm have to go inside in order for it to be good if condoms and nfp is working to the same end?

Morality is not assured by the ends. So good ends can be pursued by good or evil means. See above for a response to your question. Sex is inherently designed as a proreative act. Take that away and it’s something else.

 

[vz71]

I claim that NFP is contraceptive as the word is defined by virtually anyone not ideologically inclined to tamper with the definition.

That was not the question.

Can you answer the question?

 

[IWantGod]

Morality is not assured by the ends. So good ends can be pursued by good or evil means. See above for a response to your question. Sex is inherently designed as a proreative act. Take that away and it’s something else.

Yes but it is not wrong to simply have sex as an act of love and it is not wrong to avoid pregnancy in principle if it is not practical. So while procreation and sex go together, procreation does not have to follow from sex.

The Church is saying that its how we go about preventing a pregnancy, that is the issue. I want to know why its an issue. I have received two answers so far, its unnatural and it doesn’t follow the normal procedure involved in the process of getting a women pregnant. But neither does NFP follow the normal procedure of getting a women pregnant, it avoids it altogether.

 

[Rau]

If contraception is wrong because “Contraception separates the unitive from the pro-creative”, folks practicing NFP are absolutely contracepting.

Which sexual act was one without the other??

It doesn’t, however, hold dominion over human language.

Nor does it claim to do so. Read HV and what it teaches is clear, regardless of what you might find in some dictionaries.

As I think the Church has an obvious logical inconsistency here

There is no logical inconsistency in distinguishing ends from means. That has been inherent to catholic theology for centuries.

Separating “unitive” and “procreative” aspects of sex isn’t wrong per Catholic teaching?

Your (erroneous) words not mine. The goal that is not wrong is to have sex when pregnancy is believed to be unlikely. The means that is not wrong is to choose the time of sex. The means that is wrong is to corrupt the act.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I need a siesta bad…but:

#1. It’s all in Humane Vitae.
#2. Need to have a serious reason to delay a pregnancy, bring a kid into the family. (serious reason is another debate in itself)

Someone probably already said these things but I was just passing by.

 

[Rau]

Right on. It’s a deliberate effort to frustrate procreation.

NFP does nothing at all to the procreative nature of sexual acts. They are procreative if they are executed naturally. It does not mean they lead to conception. They are “procreative” after menopause. Shall we now have a debate about the meaning of this word? Because it surely has more than one.

NFP attempts this very feat.

Which sexual act does NFP corrupt? The one not happening? That is indeed a feat.

 

[IWantGod]

NFP does nothing at all to the procreative nature of sexual acts. They are procreative if they are executed naturally. It does not mean they lead to conception. They are “procreative” after menopause. Shall we now have a debate about the meaning of this word?

Well yes, because i understand the act of procreation to intrinsically involve conception as its natural end even if it might not happen. Nfp is trying to avoid procreation and thus conception as its natural end.

 

[Rau]

But then isn’t NFP just a loophole to what would otherwise be wrong? Are you not saying that NFP is okay because its not our fault that a women happens to not be fertile at some point?

Is telling the truth just a loophole if we’re tempted to lie?
Avoiding pregnancy is not an inherently wrong end, nor is deciding not to have sex a wrong means. God designed women to be fertile some times and infertile sometimes. We are not required to approach the marital act ignorant of the likely outcome.

 

[Rau]

But NFP attempts to do this very thing… I’ve just yet to see an explanation the reconciles the contradiction in a rational way.

It cannot separate the aspects of an act…that the parties chose to avoid. There is no act. How can it be changed?

 

[buglady]

I will be checking out some day soon. One less to worry about.

 

[JimG]

NFP can be and is used to promote conception, by those who are trying to conceive. NFP is entirely neutral as to whether one wishes to conceive or not conceive.

 

[Rau]

I want to know why its an issue.

Read HV, slowly,

 

[IWantGod]

I’ll have none of that negative talk buglady.

One less to worry about is just one more for heavens treasury.

 

[Rau]

Nfp is trying to avoid procreation and thus conception as its natural end.

NFP does not change the procreative nature of a marital act.

It is quite in order to avoid “procreation” (having a baby) - eg. Sleep separately for a week. NFP has no impact on the natural ends of any sexual act. NFP does not change/eliminate the procreative nature of any sexual act.

I appreciate that some people are of the view that: if we don’t want to get pregnant “this month/cycle”, then we must abstain for the whole of this month/cycle. The church says: “no, you don’t need to go that far. But when you do have marital relations, do not corrupt the act. Allow it to run its natural course as established by God.”

 

[Vonsalza]

NFP does nothing at all to the procreative nature of sexual acts.

Of. Course. It. Does.

This is why couples who execute it perfectly have as high as a 99.5% change of NOT getting pregnant in a given year - roughly the same as with most other contraceptive methods.

The desire for something that diminishes the procreative probability of sex, yet doesn’t seem to cross Catholicism’s line on contraception is the reason so many young Catholics seek it and defend it.

They want to enjoy sex without having kids! So they use NFP!

And then you come along and type “NFP does nothing at all to the procreative nature of sexual acts.”

You’re joking, apparently. You have to be. If it didn’t have a clear effect on procreation, Catholics wouldn’t use it. We wouldn’t be talking about it.

They are “procreative” after menopause.

Uhhhhhh…

Ok.

I’m ultimately in a Catholic house, here. I’ve made my view known, so I should respect the assumed continued Catholicity of a thread on a Catholic forum.

Thanks for the forum. I leave it to you.

Which sexual act does NFP corrupt? The one not happening? That is indeed a feat.

It corrupts all of them due to its anti-procreative timing. Because that’s what NFP is. Anti- or non-procreative sex-timing.

Ok, that’s it from me on this thread. I promise.

 

[vz71]

That was not the question.

Can you answer the question?

Still waiting.