What's 'natural' about Natural Family Planning

[JFonseka]

Certainly one could say that our ability to plan is in our nature. However we plan cities and they’re not natural, but artificial

Just because a planned event brings about something artificial, it does not and never does mean that planning always brings about something artificial, once again, what does this analogy prove? Nothing!

Conversely - and this will also help you see you attempt at objection, if you think whatever we do is natural, being given by the grace of God, then a man undertaking to make use of a device to stop a pregnancy is natural.

Condoms are not natural, they are artificial, we can agree on that right? For they are MADE by man.
The woman’s cycle was not made by man, it was planned by God, it is natural, if God’s intent was for us to use the woman’s cycle in intimacy, then it is natural.

SO which is it?

If a man uses his natural faculties to invent a device to stop a conception, is it natural? Why did you argue back in post 16 about hindering something natural? Surely the person is using their God given *nature *to do so?

The purpose of sex is not PURELY to procreate, there is pleasure associated with it, it also serves as a unitive purpose, it’s common sense that everytime a couple has sex they should not be having children. But they should be willing to accept pregnancy if that is the case.

I think this term natural has caused a lot of young Catholics a lot of confusion.

It has caused no confusion, you are the one who started this thread may I remind you, most of the people have stuck to their answers, so I don’t know of the ‘confusion’ you speak of.

I note no one’s taking up the issue of Natural Law Morality, so I hope that means people accept what I said regarding this being a plank of Catholic morality

Oh yea, great assumption, just like your assumption that everything that is planned is unnatural, and that intrisic qualities of gravity is the same as intimacy, and just to finish things off you assume that because no one has answered some question of yours earlier regarding natural law morality that we all agree with you. Great.

 

[JFonseka]

No. We had a look at the issue of having an experiment is acceptable as an analogy. This is about the fourth time I’ve stated this.
:yawn:

Glad to see your keeping track, for then if it’s 4th time you’ve stated it, then this would be me stating for the 4th time that using something with vastly different qualities.

PHYSICS EXPERIMENT VS SEXUAL INTIMACY

In the modern day this is classified as geek vs sex

Truly acceptable analogy, (note sarcasm)

[SIGN]Physics experiments are quite different from sexual intimacy by their very nature, because one holds true or doesn’t hold true does not imply the other is automatically verified. Physics Experiments specifically regarding gravity has even less to do with sexual intimacy regarding NFP[/SIGN]

 

[Montalban]

Glad to see your keeping track, for then if it’s 4th time you’ve stated it, then this would be me stating for the 4th time that using something with vastly different qualities.

PHYSICS EXPERIMENT VS SEXUAL INTIMACY

In the modern day this is classified as geek vs sex

Truly acceptable analogy, (note sarcasm)

You’re STILL hung up on the word* Physics *in the term Physics Experiment.

As noted the experiment could have been about anything. The point IS NOT that it’s about Physics, but about people making a rational decision to start a process that then proceeds naturally

That makes five times.

PS sarcasm is against forum rules. You’ve done ad hom (then accused me of this - but not shown this) and now you add insults. As well as this you continually miss the point of the analogy!

 

[JFonseka]

You’re STILL hung up on the word* Physics *in the term Physics Experiment.

As noted the experiment could have been about anything. The point IS NOT that it’s about Physics, but about people making a rational decision to start a process that then proceeds naturally

That makes five times.

When making analogies dear montalban, you have to do is so that what you are comparing to, actually HAS qualities similar so that a comparison can be made, whether it be in rational decisions or platonic logic or natural family planning.

It would make as much sense to start comparing the string tension of a guitar as their stretching when tuning is likened to the male erection during sexual intimacy as they both follow some kind of order

True the tensions INCREASE but really is this an acceptable analogy? No.

Game over.

PS sarcasm is against forum rules. You’ve done ad hom (then accused me of this - but not shown this) and now you add insults. As well as this you continually miss the point of the analogy!

I see this as a call for me to go over your posts and point out all the sarcasm, something getting to ya?

 

[Joab_Anias]

If you plan, then it’s not totally natural.

Self control and chastity are MORAL.

St. Paul says there are acceptable times a husband and wife may devote themselves to the Lord in prayer for extended periods of time and then later come back together.

Due to circumstances such as financial matters or health it may be Morally responsible to use self control to order the opportunities to concieve children. This could be Gods call to do so by bringing one to those obstacles or adversities beyond ones control.

It is in no way abortive or in denial of Gods will so the method if used properly with Gods will always in mind is in no way contrary to it.

Adversely it could be very much in denial of Gods will to give into passions and lust and concieve a child when psychologically not ready or mature enough.

 

[JFonseka]

Self control and chastity are MORAL.

St. Paul says there are acceptable times a husband and wife may devote themselves to the Lord in prayer for extended periods of time and then later come back together.

Due to circumstances such as financial matters or health it may be Morally responsible to use self control to order the opportunities to concieve children. This could be Gods call to do so by bringing one to those obstacles or adversities beyond ones control.

It is in no way abortive or in denial of Gods will so the method if used properly with Gods will always in mind is in no way contrary to it.

Adversely it could be very much in denial of Gods will to give into passions and lust and concieve a child when psychologically not ready or mature enough.

Excellent post, chastity is a plan indeed, you plan to be chaste until marriage, then you continue to be chaste in terms of no lusting and sexual impurity. You carry this plan out in Jesus’ name, and somehow according to montalban what we plan is not natural.

What we plan is natural, dependending on what exactly it is. God gave us reasoning tools, our brains, we plan ahead, it is natural if it’s in line with God’s Word.

You can dance around the terms with fancy terminology, but at the end of the day, what is planned is never always unnatural

 

[Montalban]

Self control and chastity are MORAL.

Not exactly. Only if they’re done for the right reason. Nothing is good of itself. People doing it simply 'cause they’re following rules are just as moral as the Pharisees were in their strict legalism that Jesus went against.

It is in no way abortive or in denial of Gods will so the method if used properly with Gods will always in mind is in no way contrary to it.

Same for using a device, it’s got a chance of failing too.

St. Paul also said if you have lusts, be better that you marry. He accepted we’re not all perfect.

Adversely it could be very much in denial of Gods will to give into passions and lust and concieve a child when psychologically not ready or mature enough.

You’re assuming are you that all people who use contraceptives are
a) immature
b) not psychologically ready (they still have many months to prepare - in fact, as it happens, the same amount of time Catholics do if they accidentally conceive through NFP)

 

[mercygate]

Certainly one could say that our ability to plan is in our nature. However we plan cities and they’re not natural, but artificial

Conversely - and this will also help you see you attempt at objection, if you think whatever we do is natural, being given by the grace of God, then a man undertaking to make use of a device to stop a pregnancy is natural.

SO which is it?

If a man uses his natural faculties to invent a device to stop a conception, is it natural? Why did you argue back in post 16 about hindering something natural? Surely the person is using their God given *nature *to do so?

I think this term natural has caused a lot of young Catholics a lot of confusion… because we have both a biological compoent, and a Godly component - we’re more than the animals, but still have some needs that are more base.

I note no one’s taking up the issue of Natural Law Morality, so I hope that means people accept what I said regarding this being a plank of Catholic morality

Of course natural law is a foundational plank of Catholic moral thinking. You are stuck in an extremely mechanistic view of what natural law actually is, despite yourself having quoted some excellent passages describing it.

Others have beautifully delineated the difference between CONTRA-ception and using the God-given natural cycle of fertility to regulate birth (and you know that NFP is **not **to be used with a contraceptive mentality, on a whim of convenience, to avoid having children).

Before the mechanism of human fertility was understood in a way that allowed people to track it, a couple who needed to avoid conception would have to resort to total continence. NFP provides a conjugal mercy.

 

[Montalban]

1 Corinthians 7
Marriage
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

 

[JFonseka]

1 Corinthians 7
Marriage
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

And NFP detracts from this how?

 

[Montalban]

Of course natural law is a foundational plank of Catholic moral thinking.

You were awfully silent over the first several pages of this thread when many Catholics said it wasn’t.

You are stuck in an extremely mechanistic view of what natural law actually is, despite yourself having quoted some excellent passages describing it.

Not at all. For the purposes of Contraception, is what I’m talking about.

Others have beautifully delineated the difference between CONTRA-ception and using the God-given natural cycle of fertility to regulate birth (and you know that NFP is **not **to be used with a contraceptive mentality, on a whim of convenience, to avoid having children).

That’s a false dichotomy

Two people:
Catholic : I don’t want to have a child now - I’ll only have sex on days I’m not likely to conceive.
Other: I don’t want to have a child now - I’ll only have sex in a manner so I’m not likely to conceive.

Both are actively attempting not to conceive. That is they are acting contra to conception. That’s what contraception is.

Before the mechanism of human fertility was understood in a way that allowed people to track it, a couple who needed to avoid conception would have to resort to total continence.

No. Contraceptives have been around a long time.

NFP provides a conjugal mercy.

That assumes it’s the only way of achieving this.

 

[JFonseka]

That’s a false dichotomy

Two people:
Catholic : I don’t want to have a child now - I’ll only have sex on days I’m not likely to conceive.
Other: I don’t want to have a child now - I’ll only have sex in a manner so I’m not likely to conceive.

This is dependent, if a couple have had 2 children in 2 years, and now they are in dire straits financially, considering Sex is a unitive as well as creative purpose, NFP is acceptable, considering they must not deprive of each other.

NFP is not acceptable to avoid pregnancy when you are well off financially and you have spaced out births very well.

Consider not only one case. For the current case you gave, it’s quite unclear as to why the Catholic doesn’t want to have a child.

Oh and err can you reply in my honour thy parents thread I need a mature adult’s opinion, and I’m not being sarcastic.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Not exactly. Only if they’re done for the right reason. Nothing is good of itself. People doing it simply 'cause they’re following rules are just as moral as the Pharisees were in their strict legalism that Jesus went against.

Right reasons of course. I mentioned that.

Same for using a device, it’s got a chance of failing too.

Its not the same because its abortive.

St. Paul also said if you have lusts, be better that you marry. He accepted we’re not all perfect.

He said its better to marry than to burn. This is not an excuse to indulge in lust. If you think it is go ahead and use a woman for lust and see where it gets you. Its the flesh decieving you against your spirit and I can guarantee you will eventually have detrimental consequences.

You’re assuming are you that all people who use contraceptives are
a) immature
b) not psychologically ready (they still have many months to prepare - in fact, as it happens, the same amount of time Catholics do if they accidentally conceive through NFP)

I assumed nothing, I merely proposed reasons.

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

 

[mercygate]

You were awfully silent over the first several pages of this thread when many Catholics said it wasn’t.

If I am not confusing this with another thread, I believe I was the first person on this thread to bring up the natural law.

Not at all. For the purposes of Contraception, is what I’m talking about.

No. You choose to define NFP as contraception according to a mechanical view of natural law and excluding the FUNDAMENTAL difference between working WITH the system and working AGAINST the system by deliberately altering the conjugal act itself.

That’s a false dichotomy

Two people:
Catholic : I don’t want to have a child now - I’ll only have sex on days I’m not likely to conceive.
Other: I don’t want to have a child now - I’ll only have sex in a manner so I’m not likely to conceive.

Both are actively attempting not to conceive. That is they are acting contra to conception. That’s what contraception is.

Since this has been well explained by others, I’ll not attempt once again to breach the walls of your willful intransigence.

No. Contraceptives have been around a long time.

Not in practice for faithful Christians. The first Christian body to concede that contraception MIGHT be acceptable in EXTRAORDINARY cases of great need, were the Anglicans, who passed a resolution on it in **1930. **For the 1900 years prior to that, contraception was a non-starter. Couples who needed to avoid conception were expected to live in continence.

That assumes it’s the only way of achieving this.

In accord with the 20th century novelty of thought, you presume that mechanically obstructing, thwarting, and distorting the conjugal act is OK.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Natural Family Planning is about trusting God… that’s it. Trusting the natural cycle that God created and treating sexuality as a twofold end of marriage.

From nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm

2363
The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

On Fidelity…

Conjugal fidelity

2364
The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."147 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.148 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."149

2365
Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.

On Fecundity…

The fecundity of marriage

2366
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2367
Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155

CONTRACEPTION is taking action against this fidelity and fecundity… and saying to God “I want to have sex on MY terms”.

NFP is avoiding sex when necessary. NO SEX takes place, therefore there is no action taken against the fidelity and fecundity in the union of marriage.

More from the catechism…

2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

Concentrate on that last paragraph.

 

[manualman]

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.

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

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.

 

[mercygate]

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.

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

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.

Nice post. But you know, and I know, that many people do not, cannot and WILL not see the difference. In fact, poisoned as we all are by the contraceptive mentality of our culture, even people who are disposed towards non-contraception sometimes have to WORK to figure out the difference.

As Protestants, early in our marriage, my spouse and I intuited the wrongness of contraception and gave it up (with wonderful effects on our relationship). But it was a couple of decades after I became Catholic, and someone called the Catholic position on birth control “absurd,” that I actually did the homework and saw how all the dots are connected.

I read Theology of the Body and Christopher West, and even consulted a Professor of moral theology at the Josephinum – just to be sure that my conclusions were consonant with Church teaching – before responding to my challenger.

 

[CuriousInIL]

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.

I echo this comment and cannot believe how long this has gone on.

 

[BeeSweet]

So what? Where does it say anything different to what I’ve said?

I said the church teaches natural law morality on the issue of contraception. It odes.

Natural family planning is not contraception. Look up the word’s meaning.

Contraception necessitates the use of a device, i.e. condoms and or drugs to prevent conception. Natural family planning does not allow for the use of condoms or drugs. Natural family planning teaches couples how to understand their shared fertility and plan their family based on this knowledge.

The use of a device, i.e. condoms or drugs makes contraception what it is, and also makes it unnatural and against God’s law and natural law.

 

[BeeSweet]

In your anger you missed this bit that you yourself cited

I’ve hightlighted it for you

That is God has given us a ‘natural order’ to have sex which leads to having children and intererence in that is wrong.

That in no way means people have to have sex. However if they do, the natural outcome is usually to have children.

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.