What's 'natural' about Natural Family Planning

[Corki]

"**When you have sex **there’s a ‘natural’ outcome possible - which is to have children. If you interfere in that, to prevent that possible outcome, you’re interfering in the ‘natural order’ and it’s therefore wrong. That is church teaching based on Natural Law.

But this is exactly the point. When a couple practices NFP, they are not having sex but interfering with the natural outcome. They are simply not having sex at a particular moment.

A person does not have to satisfy every desire or impulse all the time in order to live naturally. I don’t eat every time I am hungry, take a nap every time I am sleepy, or have sex every time I get the inclination. Not doing something is very different from doing something but adding an artificial element.

 

[Corki]

Folks, Montalban is simply here to provoke argument. The preceding 5 pages illustrate pretty clearly that he won’t listen to what any of us say, but merely looks for petty issues in the way each of us amatuers describe our beliefs. Ignore him and he’ll get bored.

Oops! Too late. (oh well, I needed the practice.)

 

[Kay_Cee]

So I take it you’d not have any doctors or nurses interfering in the birth – because they’d be going against God’s design?

How on earth does someone helping deliver a baby go against God’s design for our fertility?

But it’s not natural if you’re interacting with it in a planned way.

Here again you seem to think that things unplanned are unnatural. I don’t understand how you come to this conclusion.

 

[john_ennis]

Contraception, on the other hand, seeks to take the pleasure of sex, but artificially prevent the natural outcome of the act. In so doing, it transforms the action from one of mutual giving to one of selfish taking. Moreover, the actual sacrifice of abstinence in NFP serves to remind the couple to re-examine the seriousness of their reason to avoid pregnancy every month. Contraception merely encourages the couple to forget about the procreative nature of sex altogether. Thats a huge difference anyone ought to be able to see.

There’s a tremendous dose of (helpful) truth in that paragraph.

 

[Montalban]

Folks,

Appeal to the masses

In case any of YOU are disturbed by what he has said, catholic teaching on NFP is entirely consistent with natural law.

Which, by the way I spent several pages saying it was, because many Catholics argued it wasn’t
You may have missed that

Some species are sexually wired such that the very act of intercourse MAKES the female fertile. For such species, EVERY act of intercourse has the potential to create offspring. In some other species, the female will not have any interest or tolerance of sexual activity except when she is fertile. Humans are NOT in either one of those species categories. Since we can clearly observe that God designed the female human body with only a few days per month of fertility, AND she is (sometimes!) favorably disposed to sex during infertile times, it is perfectly consistant with natural law to conclude that it is NOT some kind of moral requirement to only have sex when the woman is fertile.

I have never argued that Catholics believe you can only have sex when she’s fertile. Thanks for the straw-man.

Thus, we have proved that the first tenet of NFP is acceptable by natural law. The second tenet is abstinance during the fertile times. I doubt anybody was swayed by Montalban’s laughable attempt to twist Corinthians into an order to have sex whenever you aren’t praying, and nobody with a clear mind should need much convincing that REFRAINING from sex for a time by mutual agreement simply cannot be wrong. Those are the two parts to NFP. Neither is contrary to Natural Law.

I never said this either. I said Paul recognised that we have urges. He also recognised that some may not be able to control those urges and therefore it’s better to have those urges within marriage

Contraception, on the other hand, seeks to take the pleasure of sex, but artificially prevent the natural outcome of the act.

Which is what NFP does.
con·tra·cep·tion –noun
the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs,techniques, or devices; birth control.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/contraception

Using NFP: Is there a strong chance you will not conceive?
Yes; that’s the very reason people undertake this

It is a means of preventing conception; it is contra conception.

In so doing, it transforms the action from one of mutual giving to one of selfish taking. Moreover, the actual sacrifice of abstinence in NFP serves to remind the couple to re-examine the seriousness of their reason to avoid pregnancy every month. Contraception merely encourages the couple to forget about the procreative nature of sex altogether. Thats a huge difference anyone ought to be able to see.

That’s simply your opinion on the motives of people who use condoms and other devices. You don’t know that all people think like this. It’s actually rather a smug sense of moral superiority developed by creating a false dichotomy between the means of contraception you practice and that practiced by others.

 

[Montalban]

How on earth does someone helping deliver a baby go against God’s design for our fertility?

Because you’re happy to have artificial means in the helping with the birth. It’s selective use of having man interfere in the process.

I would reckon that there’s a number of Catholic women who take folic acid during the pregnancy in order to offset the chances of having birth defects. One would think that this too is using an artificial means to change a natural process.

Catholics here seem oblivious to the hypocrisy of continually interfering in the process, at the beginning, during and at the end, and claiming it’s natural!

Here again you seem to think that things unplanned are unnatural. I don’t understand how you come to this conclusion.

I can’t believe you would question that.

 

[Montalban]

Oops! Too late. (oh well, I needed the practice.)

You’re one who in the first several pages argued against me over when I said that Catholics base their morality on natural law. Although I evidenced that from Catholic sites, you refused to accept it.

Now you seem to endorse the exact same comments from a Catholic poster.

And I’m accused of being argumentative

A little introspection goes a long way

 

[Montalban]

This is a non sequitur argument. By this reasoning the church would have us have as many children as possible, and allow sexual relations only if the female were fertile. You know perfectly well the Latin rite does not teach this, and the bit I quoted said exactly this ~ in case you missed it…

I’m not angry, I’m frustrated that people such as yourself can’t understand what is so completely simple.

Ah! Another person who argued against Catholic Morality being based on Natural Law!

What happened to that stance? Have you changed it now because several Catholics now say this too?

 

[Montalban]

Right reasons of course. I mentioned that.

Later on you talked about financial reasons

Its not the same because its abortive.

Both preventions of a pregnancy prevent a pregnancy

He said its better to marry than to burn. This is not an excuse to indulge in lust.

It’s not an excuse to engage in lust wantonly, but if you do satisfy your lusts in marriage it is better.

Those who use contraceptives sin against the moral. Plain and simple.

Based on the fact you’re taught one form of prevention’s moral, and another isn’t.

I know you enjoy being contrary for the sake of it so I realize nothing anyone says to you will sink in. What a burden it must be.

Thanks for the projection. I understand several Catholics here wish to object to any argument for its own sake. I spent several days just trying to convince Catholics that the RCC’s morality is based on natural law. I had appeals of incredulity, challenges to this basic tenet of Church teaching etc. I offered evidence and had to argue for some time.

Those that believed this were silent for some time. Finally some have said that this is indeed church teaching – but trying instead to change this to me claiming that the RCC teaches you can only have sex when you can conceive – something I’ve not said. Those that didn’t accept the natural law part; rather than now concede this point come back and make other arguments.

1
I will stop feeding the troll now, its not healthy.

Thanks for the ad hom.

There’s two acts that likely prevent a pregnancy.

One you approve of as natural and its no more natural than any other planned act.

There’s been massive amounts of projection about motives of people who use devices – such as they’re not prepared for children.

Given the failure rates of both, and that the use of devices is one used by many Christians then they would too likely honour the situation and have the child.

If you’re a poor Catholic in a poor nation, say with 8 kids, and you don’t want any more, you’d practice NFP specifically not to have a child AND if conception came about, bringing a child into a situation where they didn’t particularly want the child nor are they capable of looking after it – is moral for you!

However you think this is better than others aren’t prepared to countenance the idea of having a child

 

[Joab_Anias]

Later on you talked about financial reasons.

Perfectly valid reasons.

Both preventions of a pregnancy prevent a pregnancy

And to do so abortively is immoral. Why do you argue for contraception?

It’s not an excuse to engage in lust wantonly, but if you do satisfy your lusts in marriage it is better.

Not much, and if you do you have not a true marriage if you don’t correct it.

Based on the fact you’re taught one form of prevention’s moral, and another isn’t.

First you don’t admit or know what is correctly taught. One is conducive to Gods will and the other is not.

I spent several days just trying to convince Catholics that the RCC’s morality is based on natural law. I had appeals of incredulity, challenges to this basic tenet of Church teaching etc. I offered evidence and had to argue for some time.

But you like to argue don’t you. Have you ever heard the word troll?

Those that didn’t accept the natural law part; rather than now concede this point come back and make other arguments.

I would suppose thats because you don’t actually understand or try and circumvent the truth for the challenge of it though its impossible to change truth. As hard as you try to twist you will always get an orthodox answer from the Catholic Church.

Thanks for the ad hom.

Thanks for trolling. Did you know that the demon of legion and some others can only be cast out by prayer and fasting by the aflicted person themselves?

One you approve of as natural and its no more natural than any other planned act.

Do you read anyting anyone tells you? Its totally natural because its non abortive and open to Gods will. Cease and assist.

 

[Montalban]

Perfectly valid reasons.

They’re not moral.

And to do so abortively is immoral.

Do you mean ‘preventively’? (ie. before the fact of conception)

Why do you argue for contraception?

I don’t argue for contraception. I argue that NFP is not natural, and is no different from other forms of contraception - isnofar as it’s not natural

Not much, and if you do you have not a true marriage if you don’t correct it.

I don’t argue on degree simply that Paul recognises people have lusts and that it’s better to have them in marriage.

First you don’t admit or know what is correctly taught. One is conducive to Gods will and the other is not.

That’s circular, based on the assumption that it is.

But you like to argue don’t you.

I’ve stopped in the past on threads and had people accuse me of all manner of cowardice. You can project whatever you want when you want.

Have you ever heard the word troll?

Indeed I do. This is a discussion site. I vigorously debate. Call that what you will, but I note that many of the Moslems on the non-Catholic threads are aghast when they make their pontifications and people don’t just accept them.

I would suppose thats because you don’t actually understand or try and circumvent the truth for the challenge of it though its impossible to change truth.

You miss the point of the fact that several Catholics argued against me when I pointed out the Catholic position. I could speculate on why you would choose to ignore that. But I won’t.

As hard as you try to twist you will always get an orthodox answer from the Catholic Church.

Now you accuse me of twisting.
We’re done discussing. Unless you want to de-personalise your remarks and deal with issues raised.

 

[ForeverAdam]

We’re not tinkering with our hormones or using condoms, both of which are totally unnatural.

I was under the impression that the “natural law” has to do with God’s intention for a particular act, and not whether something is natural or artificial in the human schema. For example, if God’s law allows you to get from point A to point B, you may either naturally walk or use the artificial transportation of a vehicle. Likewise, if God intends a couple to never deliberately attempt to render a sexual act non-procreative, a person cannot do this through either a natural method like NFP or artificial contraception. It is God’s law concerning a particular action that determines its morality, not whether a natural or artificial thing is used to accomplish or oppose its fulfillment.

God bless,

Adam

 

[BeeSweet]

Ah! Another person who argued against Catholic Morality being based on Natural Law!

What happened to that stance? Have you changed it now because several Catholics now say this too?

I’m saying the same thing I’ve said from the beginning. It’s totally natural for human beings to plan. It’s totally natural for human beings to not conceive children when they have sex during an infertile time. I really do not understand what is so complicated here.

God’s law, natural law, and church law accord perfectly on this issue.

 

[BeeSweet]

I was under the impression that the “natural law” has to do with God’s intention for a particular act, and not whether something is natural or artificial in the human schema. For example, if God’s law allows you to get from point A to point B, you may either naturally walk or use the artificial transportation of a vehicle. Likewise, if God intends a couple to never deliberately attempt to render a sexual act non-procreative, a person cannot do this through either a natural method like NFP or artificial contraception. It is God’s law concerning a particular action that determines its morality, not whether a natural or artificial thing is used to accomplish or oppose its fulfillment.

God bless,

Adam

God’s intention for sexual relations while a man and woman are fertile, under normal circumstances, is conception. God’s intention for sexual relations while a a man and woman are infertile, under normal circumstances, is not conception. That’s what naturally happens.

If I choose to have sex during a fertile time as opposed to an infertile time or vice versa, I am in no way averting the natural outcome of sexual relations. During a fertile time, the natural outcome is conception, during an infertile time, you don’t conceive. I am not rendering a sex act non-pro-creative by having sex during an infertile time. Sex during an infertile time is non-pro-creative because God made it that way, not me.

 

[Bishopite]

[Montalban;2853092]
I don’t argue for contraception. I argue that NFP is not natural, and is no different from other forms of contraception - isnofar as it’s not natural
**

Just because it is called “Natural” Family Planning doesn’t mean it is part of nature as we think in our modern venacular. The word “natural” in Natural Family Planning, means abiding by the natural law of God or commonly known as the natural moral portion of the law which IS immutable and which Jesus never changed because it is immutable. And you know Montalban, that we in the New Covenant of grace are no longer bound by the law nor technically bound by the ten commandments but are bound by the righteousness behind them which is the natural moral law and which is immutable.

In NFP the couple isn’t doing anything ergo, to not engage in the marital act is NOT a sin if it is done with a serious reason and without the contraception mentality.
What if one of the couples is seriously ill? Should they keep engaging in the marital act? No, of course not.
And for the record, I don’t practice NFP and my Catholic brother has eight children with the ninth one to be born soon.

 

[JFonseka]

Once again, as usual Montalban is off on a tangent, and then failed to respond to my last posts.

 

[Bishopite]

Once again, as usual Montalban is off on a tangent, and then failed to respond to my last posts.

Montalban’s all right he just likes to debate and like most of us, he is passionate about his beliefs. I disagree with him on a few issues but we agree on most. At least he is an Eastern Orthodox who doesn’t defend contraception, when we know that the ancient Tradition has always been against it as the early church fathers spoke explicitly against contraception and sterilization. And he does well against Islam too. Here though he is going a bit to far and NFP is not against the natural moral law of God.

 

[Montalban]

Just because it is called “Natural” Family Planning doesn’t mean it is part of nature as we think in our modern venacular. The word “natural” in Natural Family Planning, means abiding by the natural law of God or commonly known as the natural moral portion of the law which IS immutable and which Jesus never changed because it is immutable. And you know Montalban, that we in the New Covenant of grace are no longer bound by the law nor technically bound by the ten commandments but are bound by the righteousness behind them which is the natural moral law and which is immutable.

The Natural part of this means that you think that if you consciously plan to have sex only on those days someone is naturally less likely to conceive, that it’s in tune with the natural law. I think it’s not, because you’re still planning NOT to conceive. You might accidentally conceive, but that can happen too if you have a condom (which aren’t 100% gauranteed)

In NFP the couple isn’t doing anything ergo, to not engage in the marital act is NOT a sin if it is done with a serious reason and without the contraception mentality.

But they are, they’re saying “Well have sex on this day so as not to conceive”

What if one of the couples is seriously ill? Should they keep engaging in the marital act? No, of course not.

But that’s not necessarily not to conceive, but not to make the person more ill.

And for the record, I don’t practice NFP and my Catholic brother has eight children with the ninth one to be born soon.

Well that is natural!

 

[Montalban]

**Is Natural Family Planning really effective? **

The Johns Hopkins Institute called Natural Family Planning ‘the best method of birth control’ saying it is 99% effective (as effective as Oral Contraceptives) and 100% safe.
domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19971201/HEALTH/NFP.HTM

It is thus less open to the possibility of conception than condoms.

Knowing how little is the chance of conceiving, anyone who partakes in this are practicing contraception in all but name

 

[mercygate]

**Is Natural Family Planning really effective? **

The Johns Hopkins Institute called Natural Family Planning ‘the best method of birth control’ saying it is 99% effective (as effective as Oral Contraceptives) and 100% safe.
domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19971201/HEALTH/NFP.HTM

It is thus less open to the possibility of conception than condoms.

Knowing how little is the chance of conceiving, anyone who partakes in this are practicing contraception in all but name

They are not practicing CONTRA-ception. They are practicing BIRTH CONTROL.

No two couples have the same circumstances, and may regulate births for valid reasons, which, include psychological, medical, and financial exigencies. You claim that this is immoral based on your view that regulating births, by whatever means and toward whatever end is equivalent.

As you are aware, intent plays a very large role in Catholic moral thinking – and in civil law as well. We hold people who steal food to feed their children less culpable than people who hold up liquor stores to feed their drug habit. We weigh the INTENT, the MEANS and the RESULT when valuing moral choices. You are disregarding the means and the intent, placing all your emphasis on the RESULT.