What is the purpose of sex during natural family planning?

[Mary_Gail_36]

It just seems like people who use NFP want a way to have sex without getting pregnant.

I mean, obviously that is what NFP is supposed to help do.

But it seems like it flies in the face of what sex is supposed to be for in Catholic thought. A couple is basically saying “we want the pleasure” (bonding, union, etc…) but not the baby. Saying a couple would be open doesn’t change this. They still don’t want or intend the baby.

Actually NFP works by abstaining from sex in order not to get pregnant. A woman can only conceive a number of days a month.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Infertile couples have sex not expecting to ever have children. The church is fine with this. You don’t have to have sex only to conceive. Even couples who are actively trying to conceive don’t automatically become pregnant.

I don’t understand what you don’t get about this.

 

[ialsop]

The purpose of sex never changes.

Its really as simple as that.

 

[davidv]

It just seems like people who use NFP want a way to have sex without getting pregnant.

Given what the CCC states, why is this wrong?

I mean, obviously that is what NFP is supposed to help do.

But it seems like it flies in the face of what sex is supposed to be for in Catholic thought. A couple is basically saying “we want the pleasure” (bonding, union, etc…) but not the baby. Saying a couple would be open doesn’t change this. They still don’t want or intend the baby.

Why does intent matter in this case?

Using the three fonts of morality:

A. Moral object: sex with spouse - no contraception - MORAL
B. Intent: Enjoy sex with spouse - MORAL; avoid pregnancy due to just reasons - MORAL
C. Circumstances: Wife is infertile, couple has just cause to delay pregnancy - NEUTRAL

Neither A, B, nor C are immoral, therefore this is a moral act.

 

[Windmill]

God wants his prerogative in deciding to bring a child into this world. NFP leaves God his prerogative while birth control does not. Here is an analogy given by Dr. Douglas Bushman, STL that many find helpful:

Imagine your sexuality as an ice fishing house. If you live up north, when lakes freeze over people will build little shacks called ice fishing houses inside of which they will cut a hole in the ice and sit on benches around the hole and fish. This shelters them from the elements outside:



So God creates this small “arena” of sexuality where couples go to renew their marriage vows. One of his rules is: You can come and go as you please, but every month for a few days I will open the door and come into the fishing house and be present. If you choose to come in and “fish” while I’m there, I may choose to make a baby. That’s up to me to make that choice, but I want that prerogative. If I’m not there, there’s no chance a baby can be made. If you’re not there, there’s also no baby. But you can come and go as you please because that’s the way I created your fertility. I just want my right to be here respected.

Given this analogy, a couple using NFP goes into the fishing house only when they think God will be absent. God still comes and goes when he wants. The NFP couple is still using the ice fishing house according to the way God has set it up and they are not interfering with God’s entry or exit to the ice fishing house. However, since they are not all three present at the same time, no baby comes.

Now, given this analogy, a couple using artificial birth control would go into the ice fishing house and lock the door as they enter and then after they leave. God is denied his right to enter into that realm of fertility. They are actively excluding God from the arena when they are in there and they are assuring that God will not be there when they re-enter their house. They co-opt the fishing house as their own and ignore the God outside knocking at the door. no baby comes because not all three are present. True, sometimes birth control may fail and a surprise pregnancy occurs, but this would be analogous to God breaking down the door while the couple is “fishing” inside. It doesn’t change the fact that the couple is still trying to bar God’s entry into the house he created.

A couple where the wife has finished menopause, in this analogy, would be where God hangs up a sign saying, “I’m finished visiting”, and he leaves the door unlocked. Couples can still come in and “fish”, but God will not come and visit, by his design, and create any more children while the couple is there.

The guiding principle here is: Are you denying God entry into your (His) fishing house? That is what being open to procreation is about. It is not that you are intending to have a baby each time you have sex. It is whether or not you are being open to God’s entry into this realm of fertility.

 

[Sparkythedog]

It just seems like people who use NFP want a way to have sex without getting pregnant.

I mean, obviously that is what NFP is supposed to help do.

But it seems like it flies in the face of what sex is supposed to be for in Catholic thought. A couple is basically saying “we want the pleasure” (bonding, union, etc…) but not the baby. Saying a couple would be open doesn’t change this. They still don’t want or intend the baby.

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.

 

[Richard_White]

The purposes of union and procreation are still present as always. This is because procreation is not thwarted. Procreation is still possible, just not probable.

May God bless you abundantly and forever!

 

[SonOfMan]

The purposes of union and procreation are still present as always. This is because procreation is not thwarted. Procreation is still possible, just not probable.

May God bless you abundantly and forever!

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.

 

[pensmama87]

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.

False.

The couple does not alter the sex act. They enjoy it as God designed it - where the majority of the time conception cannot happen.

The Church does NOT burden couples with being forced to have sex when they are fertile, or having to avoid relations if they are knowingly infertile.

 

[Windmill]

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.

As I illustrated in the analogy above, the difference is that the couple using a condom is barring God’s right to be present in the “fishing house” while the couple using NFP is not. The fact that God breaks through the barricaded door and causes a surprise pregnancy doesn’t change the fact that the couple built the barricade to exclude God.

 

[pensmama87]

As I illustrated in the analogy above, the difference is that the couple using a condom is barring God’s right to be present in the “fishing house” while the couple using NFP is not.

Exactly. It’s an attempt to change how sex works.

A couple who decides to abstain occasionally depending on fertility signals is doing nothing to change themselves or the sex act. They are cooperating with God’s design for human fertility.

 

[Jeanne_S]

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 objective is that couples having sex during an infertile period,go into it knowing that a pregnancy could still occur,they must be open to that possibility.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

Condoms are only about 85% effective with typical use.

The morality of condoms has nothing to do with the failure rate.

Contraception has two different intents. Intent 1, is to avoid pregnancy. Intent 2 is cause the act itself to be sterile.

With NFP, the couple is respecting the rhythm of the woman’s body. While the intent might be to avoid pregnancy, the act remains open to life (it is not contracepted)

 

[SonOfMan]

False.

The couple does not alter the sex act. They enjoy it as God designed it - where the majority of the time conception cannot happen.

The Church does NOT burden couples with being forced to have sex when they are fertile, or having to avoid relations if they are knowingly infertile.

How does a condom alter the sex act? Its still sex, isnt it?

 

[SonOfMan]

Exactly. It’s an attempt to change how sex works.

A condom is just a technological extension of NFP, just as using a computer to communicate is an extension of using the telephone (which is also just an extension of face to face communication).

The acts arent altered, they are merely extended.

 

[pensmama87]

A condom is just a technological extension of NFP, just as using a computer to communicate is an extension of using the telephone (which is also just an extension of face to face communication).

The acts arent altered, they are merely extended.

It introduces a barrier between a man and woman where there was never meant to be one.

Communication is morally neutral.

There is nothing wrong with Catholics practicing medicine to restore health. But contraception does the opposite - it prevents things from working as intended.

(A person could also take fertility drugs to restore reproductive health. But they can’t circumvent the process entirely by replacing the sex act with something else.)

 

[SonOfMan]

It introduces a barrier between a man and woman where there was never meant to be one.

I dont understand this barrier concept. Is this an implication that sex with a condom or “barrier” isnt truly sex?

 

[pensmama87]

I dont understand this barrier concept. Is this an implication that sex with a condom or “barrier” isnt truly sex?

Literally - it puts a thin layer of material between a man and woman so that semen is not deposited inside the woman. The whole purpose of the thing is to prevent that from happening.

I can’t speak to whether it’s still “real” sex or not, but it’s certainly not the gift of self each spouse is supposed to give each other in marriage. It’s a deliberate method of holding back.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What is the purpose of sex during natural family planning?

There is a deep and ponderous theological answer to that question…

But the simple answer is that it is really good practice…

 

[SonOfMan]

Literally - it puts a thin layer of material between a man and woman so that semen is not deposited inside the woman. The whole purpose of the thing is to prevent that from happening.

I can’t speak to whether it’s still “real” sex or not, but it’s certainly not the gift of self each spouse is supposed to give each other in marriage. It’s a deliberate method of holding back.

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.