Why is "Natural Family Planning" ok when other contraceptive methods are not?

[una_fides]

As a former Protestant with two disagreements with the Catholic Church, I believe the contraceptive pill was God’s gift, given at the very time that population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world; largely developed by Catholic researchers, and which was recommended for use by married couples by a panel set up by the Vatican, only to contravened by a nervous Pope.

I think it’s a dud ruling.

So then “God’s gift” has resulted in a massive increase in premarital sex, adultery, and the degrading of women into mere objects for pleasure. Ok, I don’t know what “god” you are referring to, but if you are Catholic, then this is a non-negotiable. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), the Church has infallibly defined this issue according to its God-given authority and divine right to do so (Mat 16:18-19), there can be no question. Contraception is intrinsically evil.

 

[Christopher68]

As a former Protestant with two disagreements with the Catholic Church, I believe the contraceptive pill was God’s gift, given at the very time that population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world; largely developed by Catholic researchers, and which was recommended for use by married couples by a panel set up by the Vatican, only to contravened by a nervous Pope.

I think it’s a dud ruling.

A recent survey showed that the majority of Catholics think this is a dud ruling as well. (I’m sure someone on the forum will respond by saying “it doesn’t matter if 99% of Catholics disagree with it, etc. etc.” I would politely disagree with that retort. When a plurality of members of your own faith take exception to something, perhaps it’s not the members who are misguided).

 

[petras52]

As a Catholic, you ought to understand that the Pope, and the Pope alone, is protected from teaching error.

And all this happened way back in the 1960’s. I would gather from this that every woman who went through this is beyond child-bearing anyway, and those women who are still in their child-bearing years have been raised with the idea that abc is wrong.

And there is no population problem.

Not to get off topic, but regarding popes and teaching error, looking back at Chuch history, we did have some bad popes a long time ago…

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis, you’re twisting my words.

You said that abstaining from sexual relations has a “masochistic, self-denial aspect”, right? And yet we abstain from sexual relations a lot. Most people who practice NFP for delaying conception do so for only a few days a month. I don’t really understand why this would be masochistic.

Do you deny that practising NFP is difficult?

I believe that it is difficult, yes, but not impossible.

I don’t think that NFP IS natural,

NFP is going with the way that God created us. Or are you saying that married people abstaining from marital relations for a few days per month is unnatural?

but in any case natural is not synonymous with “good” or “holy” or “God’s will”, unless you wish also to forego medical care and die when God intended you?

I totally agree with you on this. Natural is not synonymous with good or holy or anything else.

And natural certainly is not synonymous with exercising self-discipline instead of frustrating the end of the marital act by using abc. NFP is natural in that it goes along with what God has created, not in that the couple forgoes the use of chemicals or something like that.

 

[St_Francis]

OK, I might not have been clear enough. You tied the pleasure of sex to the acceptance of possible children as a result. You have drawn this simplified conclusion, please amend as you see fit:

ABC = breaking the union of pleasure with kids
NFP = pleasure only with possibility of kids

Well, I don’t follow your logic. You said it is evil to take the pleasure without the procreation. I fail to see how NFP does not fit this definition. You can have sex like drunken 17 year old teenagers for years with no kids as a result. Are you saying the “sacrificial abstinence” is what is required to make the NFP program moral? Most Catholics I have heard from strongly reject this line of thinking.

What makes NFP moral is that it uses the way God created us to forgo children. God created women to be fertile only for a few days each month. By the forgoing of marital activity during this time, you are acknowledging God’s glory rather than frustrating His intent.

Additionally, the couple will be pulled to stop abstaining. Each month they will be encouraged to reassess their situation. With abc, there is no pull towards having children, no inherent reasessment.

I absolutely concede that ABC breaks this “union” you are pushing. I don’t agree with the assumption, but that is not relevant.

You concede but you don’t agree? With what assumption are you not agreeing?

How can you possibly not see that NFP can just as easily break this union of pleasure with kids? The ONLY way it makes any sense is if you somehow use this “sacrificial alter” mentality of those days of the month you can not safely have sex without kids. Or am I off on this?

It is true that a couple could end up with a contraceptive mentality using NFP, but I believe that most people who practice the self-discipline necessary would not fall into that. Remember that we are talking about *entire, whole *persons, not just bodies, and people who are respecting God enough to use His methods are less likely to fall into a contraceptive mentality.

 

[St_Francis]

Not to get off topic, but regarding popes and teaching error, looking back at Chuch history, we did have some bad popes a long time ago…

Infallibility is not impeccability.

 

[St_Francis]

A recent survey showed that the majority of Catholics think this is a dud ruling as well. (I’m sure someone on the forum will respond by saying “it doesn’t matter if 99% of Catholics disagree with it, etc. etc.” I would politely disagree with that retort. When a plurality of members of your own faith take exception to something, perhaps it’s not the members who are misguided).

At one time, 80% of the bishops were Arians, heretics. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Truth, which is not decided by majorities.

 

[Christopher68]

At one time, 80% of the bishops were Arians, heretics. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Truth, which is not decided by majorities.

You will note in my earlier post that I expected a response such as yours.

I do not see this as an issue of ‘truth’. I see it as a misinterpretation.

 

[PassingThru]

What makes NFP moral is that it uses the way God created us to forgo children. God created women to be fertile only for a few days each month. By the forgoing of marital activity during this time, you are acknowledging God’s glory rather than frustrating His intent. True to some extent I suppose. But also totally ignoring the basic reason that most people practice NFP, which is to have sex but no kids.

Additionally, the couple will be pulled to stop abstaining. Each month they will be encouraged to reassess their situation. With abc, there is no pull towards having children, no inherent reasessment. ** Again, some possible truth in there. Also a lot of speculation on both sides. Anecdotal at best for some people.**

You concede but you don’t agree? With what assumption are you not agreeing? ** Agree ABC breaks this “union” as you define it. Disagree that that such a union is a requirement.**

It is true that a couple could end up with a contraceptive mentality using NFP, but I believe that most people who practice the self-discipline necessary would not fall into that. ** Purely unsupported conjecture. Also not backed up with even basic logic. **Remember that we are talking about entire, whole persons, not just bodies, and people who are respecting God enough to use His methods are less likely to fall into a contraceptive mentality. Lots more speculation. On this point, I will also concede that the population of people using NFP are likely very devout Catholics of very high standards. But, it is not because of NFP. This is a important distinction. They use NFP because they are devout. NOT the other way around. (For most people) **

I have no problems with a religious stand against ABC. How could I? Its a belief people have which is totally within their rights and private to them. I only object when people try to assign thoughts to other people, as if they somehow know what other couples think or feel. Thats when it gets ridiculous to me. This whole “pleasure with procreation” is one of those. You can’t tell me how that ratio works with different couples, so don’t try to tell others what they feel. That is why you can not say that practicing NFP couples don’t have the same mindset, because you don’t know. You can guess all you like, but you still have no idea. There is nothing inherent in NFP that provides these things you mention in your original assessment of “pleasure vs procreation”.

 

[PassingThru]

Alright, I understand now. Yes, it escalated, the time must have been right.

Notice that in my post this time I simplified the issues based upon Catholic canons rather than theological writings, except for one Papal statement. So now the issue (since when we last exchanged) comes down to definition of corrupted marital relations. Did anybody mention that a Catholic marriage is not considered as consummated when condoms are used because it is not unitive?

To be unitive the conjugal act must have at least two properties:
(1) it must be voluntarily done in a “humano modo” and
(2) it must be “actum per se aptum ad prolis generationem, ad quem natura sua ordinatur matrimonium, et quo coniuges fiunt una caro”

Latin
Can. 1061 § 1. Matrimonium inter baptizatos validum dicitur ratum tantum, si non est consummatum; ratum et consummatum,si coniuges inter se humano modo posuerunt coniugalem actum per se aptum ad prolis generationem, ad quem natura sua ordinatur matrimonium, et quo coniuges fiunt una caro.

English

Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

I hope you don’t mean for me to respond to the above?!?! We had enough trouble with a discussion on the basics of NFP, sex, and desire! I sure don’t want to drag a pope into it! We were much further along before without stepping into something like corrupt marriages!

 

[St_Francis]

Hey, Passing, when you embed your comments in another’s quotes, your comments don’t show up when someone responding to you wants to quote you.

If you put at the point at which you wish to make a comment, and

at the resumption of the other’s comments, then you can respond right where you want to.

True to some extent I suppose. But also totally ignoring the basic reason that most people practice NFP, which is to have sex but no kids.

You seem to think that the immoral aspect comes from not wanting to conceive a child right at that point in time, but that is not where it comes in. The morality comes from the *means used *to prevent conception.

Additionally, the couple will be pulled to stop abstaining. Each month they will be encouraged to reassess their situation. With abc, there is no pull towards having children, no inherent reasessment. Again, some possible truth in there. Also a lot of speculation on both sides. Anecdotal at best for some people.

My comment comes from the very nature of what is happening, and does indeed assume that the married couple will want to engage in sexual relations. On the one hand, you have the need to consider what is happening with the wife’s fertility–would this be a time in which to engage in marital relations, or abstain? Does the reason still exist, or still exist in the same intensity in which it existed the previous month? Etc.

With abc, the action is automatic and involves no reflection.

Agree ABC breaks this “union” as you define it.

Disagree that that such a union is a requirement.

God created us so that sexual activity caused procreation. It is not merely that it is a requirement but that sexual activity was created for that very purpose.

We are fortunate that God included the unitive aspect, which does not exist for other species.

Purely unsupported conjecture. Also not backed up with even basic logic.

I think it is perfectly logical to say that those who practice a self-discipline in the face of the attraction not to do so would be more thoughtful about their reasons for doing so, altho I concede that I have not run a poll on this or anything like that, so it could be considered unsupported.

On this point, I will also concede that the population of people using NFP are likely very devout Catholics of very high standards. But, it is not because of NFP. This is a important distinction. They use NFP because they are devout. NOT the other way around. (For most people)

Which was precisely my point when I said that people who respect God enough to use His methods… and not people who use God’s methods will begin to respect Him.

I have no problems with a religious stand against ABC. How could I? Its a belief people have which is totally within their rights and private to them. I only object when people try to assign thoughts to other people, as if they somehow know what other couples think or feel. Thats when it gets ridiculous to me. This whole “pleasure with procreation” is one of those. You can’t tell me how that ratio works with different couples, so don’t try to tell others what they feel. That is why you can not say that practicing NFP couples don’t have the same mindset, because you don’t know. You can guess all you like, but you still have no idea.

I was not trying to assign thoughts to people. I was merely considering human nature and how the use of abc or NFP would affect them, or how people would come to use NFP as opposed to abc.

I think that anyone could say that those who practice playing the tin-whistle for an hour every day would have a different idea about tin whistle–playing than those who decided not to take it up, no? I might not be right for *every single person on the planet, *but for the vast majority, I would probably be about right.

In the same way, I think that considering what is involved, that there are certain conclusions which can be drawn in a general way. My idea is that NFP, by its very nature of requiring abstention from an act which is desirable, would tend to lead the couple away from a contraceptive mentality. ABC does not have this *inherent *attraction toward reconsideration of the decision to forgo conception, and thus more easily leads to an abc mentality.

There is nothing inherent in NFP that provides these things you mention in your original assessment of “pleasure vs procreation”.

I’m not sure what you are referring to by the part of your statement which I bolded, and can’t figure out how they relate to your previous comments about my “assigning thoughts to other people.”

 

[St_Francis]

You will note in my earlier post that I expected a response such as yours.

I do not see this as an issue of ‘truth’. I see it as a misinterpretation.

How do you figure that?

 

[Vico]

I hope you don’t mean for me to respond to the above?!?! We had enough trouble with a discussion on the basics of NFP, sex, and desire! I sure don’t want to drag a pope into it! We were much further along before without stepping into something like corrupt marriages!

No comment necessary, I understand, but I did not say corrupt marriage in my post, it was that the marital act was corrupted through use of birth control methods, withdrawal, condoms, etc.

 

[PassingThru]

Good to know on the quotes.

You seem to think that the immoral aspect comes from not wanting to conceive a child right at that point in time, but that is not where it comes in. The morality comes from the means used to prevent conception.

If you want to make the the argument ABC = wrong on its own merits, that is fine. You originally made the argument instead about pleasure of sex and procreating. You seem to be in denial that NFP is primarily used to avoid conception, period. And a couple on NFP is just a free to have carnal, thoughtless sex as anyone else. Especially if they are good at it! (NFP that is) You drew this idea about pleasure and procreation. Totally separate from an overall discussion on ABC, per your last sentence above.

My comment comes from the very nature of what is happening, and does indeed assume that the married couple will want to engage in sexual relations. On the one hand, you have the need to consider what is happening with the wife’s fertility–would this be a time in which to engage in marital relations, or abstain? Does the reason still exist, or still exist in the same intensity in which it existed the previous month? Etc.

More speculation. Take any of the Catholic couples that had two kids in a row and no more for 20+ years of fertility and nothing that you just said would apply. At all. Your scenario can be accurate, surely. But common? Ehhhh, signs point to “no”.

With abc, the action is automatic and involves no reflection.

I wouldn’t say speculation, but definitely loaded. I will agree that ABC can make the pregnancy question an automatic assumption, and easier than NFP. However, the same can be said of NFP as well. You seem to think otherwise, but have not shown how this to be the case.

Ill just skip over the whistle part…

In the same way, I think that considering what is involved, that there are certain conclusions which can be drawn in a general way. My idea is that NFP, by its very nature of requiring abstention from an act which is desirable, would tend to lead the couple away from a contraceptive mentality. ABC does not have this *inherent *attraction toward reconsideration of the decision to forgo conception, and thus more easily leads to an abc mentality.

Yes, I will agree that it is likely easier to slide into a contraceptive mentality with ABC, sure. How much easier? Ehhhh, don’t know.

I’m not sure what you are referring to by the part of your statement which I bolded, and can’t figure out how they relate to your previous comments about my “assigning thoughts to other people.”

In short, I still contend that a couple using NFP can do all the things you spoke of originally. The parts about “stealing” and “evil”, etc. You seem to think they have this innate morality that prevents this. I disagree and think it is highly speculative. When you assign these properties to couples using NFP, and other negative properties to couples using ABC, you are, in fact, telling us what is in other peoples minds when in reality you have no idea whatsoever.

Look, at the end of the day, I think both are used with a contraceptive mentality. I don’t have the foggiest idea how people deny NFP is used as such. I am not interested in longwinded theological posts concerning this. Do Catholics use NFP, by and large, to avoid pregnancy? YES. If it didn’t prevent conception, NO ONE WOULD USE IT!!! Yes, it can help get pregnant too, i agree. But that is a side point, and we all know it.

Again, if people have a theological objection to ABC, that is great, and I have no disagreements at all. I don’t know how anyone would. But as soon as you bring it down to earth that all changes. Things like: Respect for women, levels of intimacy, reasons for delaying/avoiding, unitive properties, etc. All these things are unique to each and every couple. It bugs me to no end when someone tries to tell a couple what that couple is feeling. Or how much they respect their wife. Or how moral their reason for not wanting kids is. And tying it back to birth control. Absolutely baffling.

Sorry, rant over…

 

[Doc_Keele]

Great post Passing Thru!

 

[ryecroft]

Forgive me if I paraphrase, but I’ve been following this thread for quite some time. One of the problems that I have with NFP is that it assumes that a married couple is always able to abstain when they could get pregnant if it isn’t a good time to get pregnant. I agree that most should be mature enough to but I also know of the Catholics that I know that use NFP, I often hear about “oops” pregnancies when they just “couldn’t” control themselves. To me, this seems very irresponsible and foolish. It has been mentioned that each month a couple has to “reasess” their reasons for putting off having children - I think in many cases it’s more “reasess” if they can keep themselves from one another. This (IMHO) is NO reason (in either of the ways I mentioned) for a child to be brought into the world - because two people couldn’t keep their hands off of one another when they knew they should be holding off for a few more days.

I do also have one other problem with NFP which I wanted to mention - and this comes from having used NFP religiously and still having wound up becoming pregnant twice - I have yet to see or study a method of NFP that takes into account this “break through ovulation” (I was told that this is what had to have happened with us as I kept a calendar showing not only when I was fertile but also when we were active - the other answer was “God just must have wanted you to become pregnant…” which I have a hard time believing with the outcome we had) - to me (personally) until someone comes up with a way to deal with “break through ovulation” (besides complete abstinance) with NFP, I can’t consider it effective anymore (for us) if we’re using it to avoid getting pregnant.

I guess it also seems kind of unfair to practice self control with NFP and then still wind up pregnant. Yes, I agree that other methods of birth control have this occur as well but it’s fairly difficult to accept when you play by the rules and still have that kind of out come.
God Bless
Rye

 

[hellopeople]

I guess it also seems kind of unfair to practice self control with NFP and then still wind up pregnant. Yes, I agree that other methods of birth control have this occur as well but it’s fairly difficult to accept when you play by the rules and still have that kind of out come.
God Bless
Rye

You are playing by the rules of the church though and not a scientific organization.

 

[davidv]

You are playing by the rules of the church though and not a scientific organization.

Yes, rules of the Church, who has been authorized by God, to speak on His behalf regarding this topic.

 

[Christopher68]

How do you figure that?

To somehow divide family planning into ‘good family planning’ and ‘bad family planning’ when the ‘intent’ and the ‘end result’ is the same in both instances defies logic. .

 

[davidv]

To somehow divide family planning into ‘good family planning’ and ‘bad family planning’ when the ‘intent’ and the ‘end result’ is the same in both instances defies logic. .

Would you so kind as to describe what logic is defied in this division?

The Church teaching indicates that the morality of an action is dependent on three things:

1. the intrinsic morality of the act
2. the intention of the act
3. the circumstances

If 1) is immoral, the act is immoral independent of the morality of 2) or 3).
If 1) is moral or ammoral, the act’s morality depends on the morality of 2) and 3).