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

[PassingThru]

Let me try this.

Every sex act must be both procreative (not necessarily open to life…blah, blah, blah) and unitive.

A marriage must be **open to life **except when there is serious reason to not be. It is ok for a marriage to be closed to life under certain circumstances. It is ok for people who are not “open to life” (ie avoidng pregnancy) to have sex, b/c the act itself doesn’t have to be open to life. However the act must still be procreative. The only way to licitly achieve that end (have sex and avoid pregnancy) is to use NFP to have “procreative” sex on days where conception is not likely.

The use of contraceptives is illicit, not b/c it is wrong to have sex while trying to avoid pregnancy, it is b/c the sex act is no longer “procreative” as defined by the church.

Ehhhh, OK. You jumped through so many hoops, I am not sure where you landed. This is similar “definition gymnastics” that I was arguing earlier. If you accept this way of reasoning, there is not much to discuss. I would argue that something that needs this much twisting to make it “fit” is likely not a fit to begin with.

I would just point out that I can hold to the same Procreative ideals, but modify the application and get a different result. Meaning, it would not be much of a stretch to make the NFP system fail this Procreative test, putting ABC and NFP right back at equal footing. It is fine that you want to use a restrictive view, but I think it is only fair to expect people to not buy into, or believe, this teaching, as it seems to go against a more basic logic.

So yes, I see where you are driving, but fail to see your path as the only right or logical one.

 

[PassingThru]

Natural Family Planning is not a method of contraception. I think that is where you are getting messed up at. Natural Family Planning is simply a way of planning how and when you are going to have your children. I hope this makes some sense.

Hey Holly,

We are wayyyy past whether or not NFP is contraception.

Lets just say, contraception is a state of mind! Yes, NFP is not physically contraception. this is true.

“Natural Family Planning is simply a way of planning how and when you are going to have your children.”
“Birth Control is simply a way of planning how and when you are going to have your children.”

Both these statements are true. Neither is right or wrong.

 

[Rico_S]

Ehhhh, OK. You jumped through so many hoops, I am not sure where you landed. This is similar “definition gymnastics” that I was arguing earlier.

While I haven’t read every post in this thread I probably agree with you on "definitition gymnastics,"specifically how the church currently defines “procreative” as it relates to the marital act.

However, if you accept the Church’s definitions, the whole model does fit together. But you would expect it to…afterall, the church has had a long time to fine tune its position. I believe everything in my post follows logically. Is there something out of place other than your issue with the way the church defines certain terms?

 

[PassingThru]

While I haven’t read every post in this thread I probably agree with you on "definitition gymnastics,"specifically how the church currently defines “procreative” as it relates to the marital act.

However, if you accept the Church’s definitions, the whole model does fit together. But you would expect it to…afterall, the church has had a long time to fine tune its position. I believe everything in my post follows logically. Is there something out of place other than your issue with the way the church defines certain terms?

If you accept the Churches definitions, I agree your logic holds. This is a huge, gigantic, whopper of a leap, however. It is minor on face value, until you realize the Church uses this minor technicality, if you will, to say NFP is Procreative. Honestly, if it didn’t come from the Church, no one, including you, would “buy” this logic. I would still argue that intentionally infertile sex is not Procreative, which kills the whole deal. I would also ask where the issue the systematic engaging of sex only during infertile times is addressed. Not an instance, but the system. It seems this is largely ignored.

 

[St_Francis]

If you accept the Churches definitions, I agree your logic holds. This is a huge, gigantic, whopper of a leap, however. It is minor on face value, until you realize the Church uses this minor technicality, if you will, to say NFP is Procreative. Honestly, if it didn’t come from the Church, no one, including you, would “buy” this logic. I would still argue that** intentionally infertile sex is not Procreative,** which kills the whole deal.

Well, this is the problem you are having. *How *the sexual act came to be infertile is the issue.

If the sexual act occurs at a time when the wife is not fertile, that does not render the act sinful.

If the sexual act is abstained from when the wife is fertile, that is not sinful.

What is sinful is the “mutilation” of the act, just as I said that the man who was mistakenly vasectomised would be mutilated even if he was not married and had no need for that particular function/part of his anatomy.

I would also ask where the issue the systematic engaging of sex only during infertile times is addressed. Not an instance, but the system. It seems this is largely ignored.

As I pointed out before, and you seem to have noticed that point since you complained “… that Catholic teaching always seems to focus things like intent, or larger moral or spiritual reasonings, but in this case is does a 180 the other way.” And I explained all that stuff about the three aspects of an action: intent, means, and end…

 

[Rico_S]

I would also ask where the issue the systematic engaging of sex only during infertile times is addressed. Not an instance, but the system. It seems this is largely ignored.

I have often argued this same position. I used the example of structuring. Lets say I want to move $50K into the US form off shore accounts. I know that moving that much money in one shot will likely be flagged in some way and it likely to attract some sort of attention. I also know that transferring $5K will not trigger any of these flags. So instead of bringing in my $50k all at once, I decide to make 10 smaller transfers of 5K each to avoid any attention. While transferring 5K is perfectly fine, initiating multiple transfers of $5k in order to bring in $50K is called structuring and is illegal. It is not the individual act that makes it illicit, but the overall scheme and intent. Similarly,looking at NFP, it is reasonable the act of having sex during an infertile time should not be an issue…however it is an entirely different beast when you choose to only have sex during infertile times. The overall systematic avoidance of fertile times is fundamentally different than a simple act of having sex during infertile times. You are correct there.

However, it doesn’t matter…b/c the church doesn’t teach that we have to always be open to life. With serious reason, we can be closed to life and still participate in the marital act b/c the marital act only has to be ordered toward procreation…not open to life. It is quite clear…but only gets muddied when people start discussing this issue in terms of respect for fertility…giving of oneself fully…etc. etc.

You or I may disagree how the church uses the term “procreative,” but our disagreement with terminology surely is not the root of your problem with the church’s teaching.?

 

[PassingThru]

Well, this is the problem you are having. *How *the sexual act came to be infertile is the issue.

If the sexual act occurs at a time when the wife is not fertile, that does not render the act sinful.

If the sexual act is abstained from when the wife is fertile, that is not sinful.

What is sinful is the “mutilation” of the act, just as I said that the man who was mistakenly vasectomised would be mutilated even if he was not married and had no need for that particular function/part of his anatomy.

This again assumes the position that ABC is inherently wrong. Did you catch my earlier post? I don’t know how many times I can agree that ABC modifies that act while NFP does not. Also, each instance of having or not having sex using NFP is completely benign. I am saying it is NFP as a system that, to ME, starts to pull otherwise Procreative sex into the realm of non-Procreative sex.

As I pointed out before, and you seem to have noticed that point since you complained “… that Catholic teaching always seems to focus things like intent, or larger moral or spiritual reasonings, but in this case is does a 180 the other way.” And I explained all that stuff about the three aspects of an action: intent, means, and end…

Intent and End have always been outside the scope. Means is on the table. Catholic teaching tells us that choosing to not have sex, or to have sex, both are moral, and therefore all three are satisfied. I have not seen anything that talks not of NFP as an individual sequence of decisions, but a systematic plan, and related this back to the means. Usually this is somehow re categorized elsewhere.

Oh, and still nothing you have said explains WHY contracepted sex is wrong. I have moved off this issue, and on to specific pro/con arguments relating NFP to ABC. You keep bringing up the fact, I am open to hear your reasoning. I have not said either way. Please see my previous response where I covered using ABC to prove ABC is wrong, and how that doesn’t work.

 

[PassingThru]

I have often argued this same position. I used the example of structuring. Lets say I want to move $50K into the US form off shore accounts. I know that moving that much money in one shot will likely be flagged in some way and it likely to attract some sort of attention. I also know that transferring $5K will not trigger any of these flags. So instead of bringing in my $50k all at once, I decide to make 10 smaller transfers of 5K each to avoid any attention. While transferring 5K is perfectly fine, initiating multiple transfers of $5k in order to bring in $50K is called structuring and is illegal. It is not the individual act that makes it illicit, but the overall scheme and intent. Similarly,looking at NFP, it is reasonable the act of having sex during an infertile time should not be an issue…however it is an entirely different beast when you choose to only have sex during infertile times. The overall systematic avoidance of fertile times is fundamentally different than a simple act of having sex during infertile times. You are correct there.

However, it doesn’t matter…b/c the church doesn’t teach that we have to always be open to life. With serious reason, we can be closed to life and still participate in the marital act b/c the marital act only has to be ordered toward procreation…not open to life. It is quite clear…but only gets muddied when people start discussing this issue in terms of respect for fertility…giving of oneself fully…etc. etc.

You or I may disagree how the church uses the term “procreative,” but our disagreement with terminology surely is not the root of your problem with the church’s teaching.?

You are a smart man Rico, you sound like a teacher/professor!

You are right, the terminology is just a tool. I am an analyst by trade. I have mentioned before, that I do not see much difference between the two (NFP vice ABC). It is not that I like ABC, or think it *should *be accepted. What gets me is the logic that is put out in support of NFP while against ABC. Almost every argument you can make can trip up either NFP or ABC. Look at our discussion on Procreative. I am not saying I am “right” by any means, but to be fair, if you are “pro-NFP” and do not see how tenuous the Catholic position is using terms this way, well, you are not being very objective. Really, the only position that makes any sense to me is treating this as a matter of faith. Anything past that becomes almost impossible to defend with logic. Or, the defense becomes your faith. Which, again, is totally fine by me.

 

[Vico]

If you accept the Churches definitions, I agree your logic holds. This is a huge, gigantic, whopper of a leap, however. It is minor on face value, until you realize the Church uses this minor technicality, if you will, to say NFP is Procreative. …

The Church does not teach that NFP is procreative. Note that the logic of Pope Pius IX expressed in 1930 is that the sin is in “frustrating the marriage act” and the word “frustrating” used is actually the Latin destituere which means"to deprive of", “to strip” or “to rob”. The 1880 Apostolic Penitentary had previously expressed (1880) the definion of what we now call NFP, then called periodic continence, as abstain … except on those days which, according to certain recent theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons. (See Latin below.) So there can be no robbing of that which cannot produce conception, therefore NFP it is not procreative.

"De uso exclusivo temporum agenneseos:
"Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?"
“Resp.: Provisum est per Resp. S. Paenitentiariae, 16. Iun. 1880.”

 

[PassingThru]

The Church does not teach that NFP is procreative. Note that the logic of Pope Pius IX expressed in 1930 is that the sin is in “frustrating the marriage act” and the word “frustrating” used is actually the Latin destituere which means"to deprive of", “to strip” or “to rob”. The 1880 Apostolic Penitentary had previously expressed (1880) the definion of what we now call NFP, then called periodic continence, as abstain … except on those days which, according to certain recent theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons. (See Latin below.) So there can be no robbing of that which cannot produce conception, therefore NFP it is not procreative.

"De uso exclusivo temporum agenneseos:
"Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?"
“Resp.: Provisum est per Resp. S. Paenitentiariae, 16. Iun. 1880.”

Thanks Vico! A man who knows his Catholic teachings!

Well, Rico, I guess we are wrong, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that NFP is Procreative! Of course, I have no idea where that leaves us!!!

 

[St_Francis]

This again assumes the position that ABC is inherently wrong. Did you catch my earlier post? I don’t know how many times I can agree that ABC modifies that act while NFP does not. Also, each instance of having or not having sex using NFP is completely benign. I am saying it is NFP as a system that, to ME, starts to pull otherwise Procreative sex into the realm of non-Procreative sex.

Intent and End have always been outside the scope. Means is on the table. Catholic teaching tells us that choosing to not have sex, or to have sex, both are moral, and therefore all three are satisfied. I have not seen anything that talks not of NFP as an individual sequence of decisions, but a systematic plan, and related this back to the means. Usually this is somehow re categorized elsewhere.

Oh, and still nothing you have said explains WHY contracepted sex is wrong. I have moved off this issue, and on to specific pro/con arguments relating NFP to ABC. You keep bringing up the fact, I am open to hear your reasoning. I have not said either way. Please see my previous response where I covered using ABC to prove ABC is wrong, and how that doesn’t work.

Well, I have done my utmost level best; I am obviously not the person who will be able to clarify this for you. It looks totally clear to me, but I can’t put it into the words which will make it clear for you.

God created things to work a certain way. We can help them to work in the way God created them to when they are not working (taking medicine, etc), but we cannot make things work *less *well.

I just cannot think of another way to put it or another angle from which to approach it.

But I think that we had a good conversation

 

[Rico_S]

So there can be no robbing of that which cannot produce conception

So, I am free to use a condom if my wife is post menopausal?

You may want to rethink that statement.

 

[Vico]

So, I am free to use a condom if my wife is post menopausal?

You may want to rethink that statement.

I will clarify. Two issues exist here 1) exclusive use of the agenesic (sterile) period and 2) proper conjugal act.

“So there can be no robbing of that which cannot produce conception” stands to show that Pope Pius IX is not referring to NFP in his statement, but to proper conjugal act.

Use of a condom is improper use, and it was ruled that a marriage is not consummated when a condom is used. You can understand that with a condom the conjugal act is not “a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring” (Canon 1061,1).

Here is the statement from 1880 defining NFP with my translation.

"De uso exclusivo temporum agenneseos:

"Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?"
“Resp.: Provisum est per Resp. S. Paenitentiariae, 16. Iun. 1880.”

On the exclusive use of the agenesic (sterile) period:

Whether licit in itself is the practice by which for just and grave causes, wishing to avoid offspring in a honorable way, from the martrimonial use abstain, by mutual consent and with honorable motives, except on those days which, according to certain recent theories, that for natural reasons conception is not possible.

 

[PassingThru]

Well, I have done my utmost level best; I am obviously not the person who will be able to clarify this for you. It looks totally clear to me, but I can’t put it into the words which will make it clear for you.

God created things to work a certain way. We can help them to work in the way God created them to when they are not working (taking medicine, etc), but we cannot make things work *less *well.

I just cannot think of another way to put it or another angle from which to approach it.

But I think that we had a good conversation

Thanks! I think so too!

I think the best defense is your faith, and I think you have it in spades! I think part of the reason we can’t see eye to eye, is that as you said, you can’t see just how it could not be clear to me! That can not be a bad thing as a practicing Catholic!

 

[St_Francis]

Thanks! I think so too!

I think the best defense is your faith, and I think you have it in spades! I think part of the reason we can’t see eye to eye, is that as you said, you can’t see just how it could not be clear to me! That can not be a bad thing as a practicing Catholic!

Wow, that’s so nice of you to say that!

 

[Vico]

Let me try this.

Every sex act must be both procreative (not necessarily open to life…blah, blah, blah) and unitive.

A marriage must be **open to life **except when there is serious reason to not be. It is ok for a marriage to be closed to life under certain circumstances. It is ok for people who are not “open to life” (ie avoidng pregnancy) to have sex, b/c the act itself doesn’t have to be open to life. However the act must still be procreative. The only way to licitly achieve that end (have sex and avoid pregnancy) is to use NFP to have “procreative” sex on days where conception is not likely.

The use of contraceptives is illicit, not b/c it is wrong to have sex while trying to avoid pregnancy, it is b/c the sex act is no longer “procreative” as defined by the church.

Rico S, that sounds correct to me, but you can eliminate some confusion of terms with this:

Open to life, with respect to an act, means intention to accept children if they result. Open to life, with respect to a marriage, means no intention to exclude children by denying conjugal rights if justly requested, and NFP only for moral and serious reasons. By the act being procreative is meant that the act itself is one that if conditions were right, pregnancy would result, so that excludes condoms and ABC. (Sterility in not an impediment to marriage.)

 

[Rico_S]

“So there can be no robbing of that which cannot produce conception” stands to show that Pope Pius IX is not referring to NFP in his statement, but to proper conjugal act.

It is no wonder people don’t get this teaching and are often left scratching their heads. I am confused as to what you are trying to convey with the statement “So there can be no robbing of that which cannot produce conception” Can you put in your own words what this statement means or what you are trying to support with this statement.

 

[Rico_S]

What gets me is the logic that is put out in support of NFP while against ABC. Almost every argument you can make can trip up either NFP or ABC.

I agree wholeheartedly. It all flows nicely if you accept the teaching at face value; like I have done in my previous posts. But once one tries to explain the why’s…it gets unclear, imo. Ultimately the question you should be asking is why must each act be procreative; that is why must each act be “ordered toward life.” I believe you should ignore the whole NFP and abc debate and go straight to the root of the issue. Why must each act be ordered toward life?

 

[Vico]

It is no wonder people don’t get this teaching and are often left scratching their heads. I am confused as to what you are trying to convey with the statement “So there can be no robbing of that which cannot produce conception” Can you put in your own words what this statement means or what you are trying to support with this statement.

The Apostolic Penitentiary defined our NFP: “except on those days which, according to certain recent theories, that for natural reasons conception is not possible.”

It is not possible for an infertile period to be deprived of fertility.

So, the Church does not teach that NFP is procreative (capable of reproducing; generative).

American Heritage Dictionary, robbing: "3. (tr) to deprive unjustly to be robbed of an opportunity".

Casti Canubii is not about NFP (the conjugal act itself during naturally infertile periods), which meaning is clarified by understanding that Casti Canubii uses the Latin destituere which means “to deprive of”, “to strip” or “to rob” which is translated as frustrated here:

“….any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated [robbed] in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of grave sin.” – Pope Pius IX expressed in 1930 (Casti Canubii)

(Castii Canubii was issued after the Anglican Lambeth Conference which recommended abstinence as the desired form of birth control but allowed for other methods used in light of Christian principles.)

 

[davidv]

This again assumes the position that ABC is inherently wrong. Did you catch my earlier post? I don’t know how many times I can agree that ABC modifies that act while NFP does not. Also, each instance of having or not having sex using NFP is completely benign. I am saying it is NFP as a system that, to ME, starts to pull otherwise Procreative sex into the realm of non-Procreative sex.

Intent and End have always been outside the scope. Means is on the table. Catholic teaching tells us that choosing to not have sex, or to have sex, both are moral, and therefore all three are satisfied. I have not seen anything that talks not of NFP as an individual sequence of decisions, but a systematic plan, and related this back to the means. Usually this is somehow re categorized elsewhere.

Oh, and still nothing you have said explains WHY contracepted sex is wrong. I have moved off this issue, and on to specific pro/con arguments relating NFP to ABC. You keep bringing up the fact, I am open to hear your reasoning. I have not said either way. Please see my previous response where I covered using ABC to prove ABC is wrong, and how that doesn’t work.

One problem I see with this is your claim that the wrongness of ABC is just an assumption.

It is not an assumption, it is a rationale conclusion based on the natural law regarding sexual relations.