What is the purpose of sex during natural family planning?

[pensmama87]

So the issue is the delivery and reception of semen, as well as the barrier? A tubal ligation or hysterectomy doesn’t conflict with those issues, so I guess that’s okay.

No, because that’s an altering of self.

Hysterectomy can be therapeutic (not sure about tubal ligation, sometimes people use the phrase to mean different things). But a hysterectomy for contraceptive purposes would be immoral (I also think that is rarely if ever done these days as it’s very major surgery - it’s almost always done for therapeutic purposes which are legitimate).

So you can’t change the sex act or yourself to thwart the natural end of sex. That is the whole of Church teaching on contraception, the end. No mandate to have as many kids as possible, no only having sex when you’re likely to conceive. Just that sex is designed in a particular way and we cooperate with it because we are fearfully and wonderfully made. It would also be immoral to starve ourselves or purge after eating, or to be gluttonous and overeat. But it’s perfectly in line to eat healthy and tasty food because our digestive systems were made for it. But the other stuff is a distortion and mishandling of how our bodies were designed to work.

The natural end of sex is, by design, not going to result in conception most of the time. That doesn’t mean that we can just do whatever we want because it’s likely that conception won’t happen anyway. What it does mean is we can cooperate with God’s design for our sexuality and choose to abstain or not abstain.

 

[Rau]

What is the purpose of sex when couples are going through with natural family planning?

Just to say a bit more in anticipation:

It seems to me that, since couples who have sex during NFP are not expecting to conceive, the purpose of sex in these cases is for union alone. Or bonding. Or pleasure. Replace “pleasure,” “union,” or “bonding” with whatever terms you’d like in order to make them more or less spiritual or meaningful, but ultimately, it seems that sex can be endured without a procreative purpose but a unitive one only. Wouldn’t this open the spectrum of sexual acts to others that are not purely meant for ***both ***“procreation” and “union”?

You may as well ask why the female is not fertile throughout the month, but rather only cyclically so.

Nate that man+woman sexual relations are entirely congruent / consistent with our bodies. It is the only sexual relationship where there is no dissonance.

 

[Rau]

It sounds like you are asking about intent. The couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy and continue havibg sex has the same intent as a couple using a condom. They intend not to get pregnant while still enjoying sexual pleasure.

The NFP couple is not open to life in this scenario according to catholic teaching. There is no procreative aspect to their sexual act.

No, it is not about Intent. NFP would be immoral if the Intention to have sex while not seeking a Child were immoral. But it is per se moral.

Open to life in the context of a marital act does not mean “seeks a child”. It means not interfering with the act happening now to destroy its natural “procreative” character. Natural sex during menopause is equally procreative in nature as it is at any other time.

 

[Rau]

The same applies to a couple who has sex with the use of a condom. A condom is only 99% effective, so procreation is still possible but not probable.

The effectiveness of the unnatural intervention (represented by the condom) is not the issue, rather the moral meaning is. The condom seeks to remove procreative meaning, which is an illicit means of avoiding pregnancy. There are also licit means to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Kelfa28]

I’ve been nothing but open to life during my marriage.

We’ve used NFP to the best of our ability and have still become pregnant. God’s will is God’s will at the end of the day.

NFP is ONLY information. That is it. It’s not a barrier and it’s not an alteration of the human body.

It’s what you choose to do with that information that helps you either achieve pregnancy or prevent it.

All you are doing to prevent pregnancy is choosing to abstain during the fertile time frame of a woman’s cycle.

Find me something in the CCC that says this is immoral and wrong.

Anyone who thinks that NFP is also immoral and wrong is confusing “open to life” with the desire to have a baby.

You aren’t required to want to conceive a child every time you have sex with your spouse…you just need to be open to the possibility of life.

Believe me…that last thing I wanted was to get pregnant a third time after only being married for 3 years.
But…we were open to life and life happened.

If you were required to not only make life happen each and every time you had sex and what life to happen…sexual intimacy during pregnancy, infertility and menopause would be totally immoral and wrong.

Guess what? It’s not.

 

[Rau]

So the issue is the delivery and reception of semen, as well as the barrier? A tubal ligation or hysterectomy doesn’t conflict with those issues, so I guess that’s okay.

The issue is the removal of the procreative nature of the act. Absent medical necessity, we can presume that vasectomy, tubular removal/ligation and hysterectomy are acts having the moral object of removing the procreative meaning from subsequent marital acts. Donning a condom and taking the pill prior to sexual acts has the same moral object, and it is an evil. Thus all these acts are evil.

Having sex during a time believed to be infertile does not remove the procreative aspect. It remains. That pregnancy is less likely is a result of the natural design of the female cycle.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

The issue is the removal of the procreative nature of the act. Absent medical necessity, we can presume that vasectomy, tubular removal/ligation and hysterectomy are acts having the moral object of removing the procreative meaning from subsequent marital acts. Donning a condom and taking the pill prior to sexual acts has the same moral object, and it is an evil. Thus all these acts are evil.

Having sex during a time believed to be infertile does not remove the procreative aspect. It remains. That pregnancy is less likely is a result of the natural design of the female cycle.

I’m reading through this forum, and I’m starting to feel so dumb, because I’m certain it’s something I’ve read a million times before, but I still don’t understand it well enough to explain it to someone else. So, Rau, what are you? A moral theologian? You always know the technical stuff , it seems. But thanks for trying to share your knowledge- I really really appreciate your help.

So, about this topic, I think the idea that sex remains open to life in phase I or II makes a lot of sense (I’m not sure if the other methods have three phases, but we use STM.) but if one uses NFP very strictly and only has sex in phase III, after ovulation has taken place- how exactly is that open to life? It’s impossible to get pregnant at that point (as it is after menopause) so how is it that these cases retain the procreative aspect of sex??? Maybe if you define procreative I might get it… But I don’t understand how sex that makes it impossible to get pregnant is procreative…

 

[Vico]

What is the purpose of sex when couples are going through with natural family planning?

Just to say a bit more in anticipation:

It seems to me that, since couples who have sex during NFP are not expecting to conceive, the purpose of sex in these cases is for union alone. Or bonding. Or pleasure. Replace “pleasure,” “union,” or “bonding” with whatever terms you’d like in order to make them more or less spiritual or meaningful, but ultimately, it seems that sex can be endured without a procreative purpose but a unitive one only. Wouldn’t this open the spectrum of sexual acts to others that are not purely meant for ***both ***“procreation” and “union”?

The moral and just conjugal act is *apt *for procreation even with infertility and because there is not a determination of the will to deny children if pregnancy occurs. Use of natural family planning requires a just cause, however it is not 100% effective.

 

[catholic1seeks]

There have been many responses from the same perspective of things, so I can’t really respond to each reply. But I have noticed some trends.

So sex in NFP is OK because a couple is still open to procreation if God wills it. First off, I have a problem using language like “if God wills the pregnancy,” because it implies God getting messy in the physical act, and it reminds me of a very primitive idea of the gods affecting the physical happenings on Earth. It’s not as if the Holy Spirit comes down during sex to guide the sperm to the egg. Sure, miracles can happen, but if that is what “being open to procreation” means, then I’m sure we could figure out a lot of loopholes to moral situations in life that way.

But more importantly, the Christian wants God’s will to be done in all aspects of his life. So that should just be assumed in the case of a couple having sex as well. That does not negate what the couple is immediately willing. Why are they having sex? Couples use NFP so they won’t get pregnant.

Not only is it okay to have sex and not get pregnant (obvious occurance), it is legitimate to approach sex not wanting to get pregnant. Therefore, couples using NFP can have sex only for union/pleasure.

I am not separating union and pleasure because they go hand-in-hand. The bond created in sex brings two closer together and is extremely enjoyable. A couple who has sex while using NFP wants this experience.

I just don’t see how other acts, like contracpetion of homosexual acts, can be disallowed based on “not being procreative” when NFP sex is a sex strictly for union/pleasure. Sex between infertile couples is another example. Some heterosexual sex allowed by the Church is simply incapable of yielding a pregnancy, unless by miracle. Some sex allowed by the Church is only for union and pleasure. It means little to say the act is done in a means that is ordered to procreation when procreation cannot happen.

 

[davidv]

There have been many responses from the same perspective of things, so I can’t really respond to each reply. But I have noticed some trends.

So sex in NFP is OK because a couple is still open to procreation if God wills it. First off, I have a problem using language like “if God wills the pregnancy,” because it implies God getting messy in the physical act, and it reminds me of a very primitive idea of the gods affecting the physical happenings on Earth. It’s not as if the Holy Spirit comes down during sex to guide the sperm to the egg. Sure, miracles can happen, but if that is what “being open to procreation” means, then I’m sure we could figure out a lot of loopholes to moral situations in life that way.

But more importantly, the Christian wants God’s will to be done in all aspects of his life. So that should just be assumed in the case of a couple having sex as well. That does not negate what the couple is immediately willing. Why are they having sex? Couples use NFP so they won’t get pregnant.

Not only is it okay to have sex and not get pregnant (obvious occurance), it is legitimate to approach sex not wanting to get pregnant. Therefore, couples using NFP can have sex only for union/pleasure.

I am not separating union and pleasure because they go hand-in-hand. The bond created in sex brings two closer together and is extremely enjoyable. A couple who has sex while using NFP wants this experience.

I just don’t see how other acts, like contracpetion of homosexual acts, can be disallowed based on “not being procreative” when NFP sex is a sex strictly for union/pleasure. Sex between infertile couples is another example. Some heterosexual sex allowed by the Church is simply incapable of yielding a pregnancy, unless by miracle. Some sex allowed by the Church is only for union and pleasure. It means little to say the act is done in a means that is ordered to procreation when procreation cannot happen.

Based on the above I have to conclude that you understood little of what others have offered as explanations of the Church teaching.

Be still and know God. Your understanding is not required. Your trust in God is required. The Church is God’s voice in the world today.

Your personal opinion is not in line with God wants for His people. Following your lead can cause some to choose a path to serious sin. Cease and desist.

 

[Rau]

…but if one uses NFP very strictly and only has sex in phase III, after ovulation has taken place- how exactly is that open to life? It’s impossible to get pregnant at that point (as it is after menopause) so how is it that these cases retain the procreative aspect of sex??? Maybe if you define procreative I might get it… But I don’t understand how sex that makes it impossible to get pregnant is procreative…

Some will tell you it is “open to life” because there is a chance of pregnancy, or God gets to intervene or some such thing. Now while one can speculate that there is indeed always a chance of pregnancy (eg. some women ovulate more than once per month, sometimes), that argument is not right. It has nothing to do with the chance of pregnancy. There is no requirement to have sex only when the chance exceeds 0 or some other threshold. It would be valid to have sex during a time in the cycle that one could know with certainty is infertile.

Procreative does not mean “there’s a chance of pregnancy”. Procreative is a simple idea - the sex act occurring is performed in the natural unitive manner without impediments to its natural consequences. Thus all such acts in any phase of the cycle are procreative, as are acts with an infertile spouse, as are acts post-menopause.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Some will tell you it is “open to life” because there is a chance of pregnancy, or God gets to intervene or some such thing. Now while one can speculate that there is indeed always a chance of pregnancy (eg. some women ovulate more than once per month, sometimes), that argument is not right. It has nothing to do with the chance of pregnancy. There is no requirement to have sex only when the chance exceeds 0 or some other threshold. It would be valid to have sex during a time in the cycle that one could know with certainty is infertile.

Procreative does not mean “there’s a chance of pregnancy”. Procreative is a simple idea - the sex act occurring is performed in the natural unitive manner without impediments to its natural consequences. Thus all such acts in any phase of the cycle are procreative, as are acts with an infertile spouse, as are acts post-menopause.

So procreative means no impediment to the natural consequences… What are those natural consequences? And why is it considered immoral to impede these natural consequences?

 

[Rau]

So procreative means no impediment to the natural consequences… What are those natural consequences? And why is it considered immoral to impede these natural consequences?

That which happens naturally. Not much at all if one is infertile. Not much most of the time. Conception (creation of life) some of the time.

The church teaches that it is immoral to deprive the marital act of its procreative aspect, on the grounds that the creator made it this way. You might find a fuller rationale by reading the encyclicals that address this topic - but you will not find compelling “proof” if that is what you require. It’s called faith for a reason. And either the Church has teaching authority or it does not.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

That which happens naturally. Not much at all if one is infertile. Not much most of the time. Conception (creation of life) some of the time.

The church teaches that it is immoral to deprive the marital act of its procreative aspect, on the grounds that the creator made it this way. You might find a fuller rationale by reading the encyclicals that address this topic - but you will not find compelling “proof” if that is what you require. It’s called faith for a reason. And either the Church has teaching authority or it does not.

So it’s immoral to deprive an act of its natural consequences? Why is that not true for all things though? why can we deprive natural consequences in some things but not in others? (I’m thinking chemo, epidural, medical interventions in general)

Proof that it’s immoral? If that’s what you mean, no that’s not what I was looking for (obviously that can’t be found for any claim on anything related to morality- one could argue something is immoral but never prove it) … I’m trying to understand the argument.

 

[Rau]

So it’s immoral to deprive an act of its natural consequences? Why is that not true for all things though? why can we deprive natural consequences in some things but not in others? (I’m thinking chemo, epidural, medical interventions in general)

Heck no! I have to deprive eating cheesecake of its natural consequences by exercising. In the subject at hand, to deprive the act of its procreative nature is to separate that from its unitive nature. That is why this particular deprivation is found wrong. They are not to be separated.

 

[sherimarie]

This is a really important discussion to have. Don’t get annoyed, there are great explanations here, good insight.

The proof that NFP is not a mortal sin (even if it is used selfishly) is in the Baltimore catechism. In order for it to be mortal, there has to be a serious ACT. Even if it just an act of the will, (lust) by following the standards of NFP we are only choosing to wait to take the gift from God, holding off when we COULD go forward is not a sin.

That is what they mean when they say intent.

Read " A Man for All Seasons" . It will be entertaining, if not enlightening.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Heck no! I have to deprive eating cheesecake of its natural consequences by exercising. In the subject at hand, to deprive the act of its procreative nature is to separate that from its unitive nature. That is why this particular deprivation is found wrong. They are not to be separated.

Ok, so, regarding sex, the act has a unitive and procreative nature, the procreative nature refers to the natural consequences, and the two natures shouldn’t be separated because that would be sinful- that’s what makes contracepting immoral - not that it prevents the natural consequences but that it separates the two natures of the act?

So, what’s the definition of unitive nature? (Just curious because since I misunderstood procreative I wonder if I’m misunderstanding unitive too)

And more importantly, the question I have is does the Church give a reason as to why it’s immoral to separate procreative from unitive? Or is there a general reason against an act having two natures and separating them? This is far from intuitive to me so I’m assuming they must have a reason…

 

[catholic1seeks]

Based on the above I have to conclude that you understood little of what others have offered as explanations of the Church teaching.

Be still and know God. Your understanding is not required. Your trust in God is required. The Church is God’s voice in the world today.

Your personal opinion is not in line with God wants for His people. Following your lead can cause some to choose a path to serious sin. Cease and desist.

Are you trying to get me kicked off or something?

How am I leading others away? How am I not understanding what people are saying? I was not able to respond to each post, but I observed the major trends. I think many people misunderstand what I actually do understand. Some users keep getting caught up in the “open” or “ordered to procreation,” which I understand. But NFP individuals approach sex in manner so they won’t get pregnant; they do not want to.

 

[Rau]

…NFP individuals approach sex in manner so they won’t get pregnant; they do not want to.

They do so at times. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[catholic1seeks]

They do so at times. Do you have a problem with that?

I do not think it is wrong to approach sex not wanting to get pregnant, so I do not have a problem with it morally.

I have a problem in terms of finding consistency when we as Catholics say certain kinds of sex cannot be had because they are not “open to procreation.” NFP users are doing NFP precisely so they can have sex and not procreate.

It seems noteworthy that only the Catholic Church promotes this understanding (that I know of) and within the Church, a minority seem to embrace and live this teaching out.