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

  • Thread starter Thread starter AskSeekKnock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abu said:
Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization. [My emphasis].
Click to expand...
Wow, that is ridiculous IMO. So if I use a condom with my wife I am condoning genital activity with anyone and anything…AND supporting cloning? What is this guy talking about.

Also, if the church’s teachings on contraception is “a clear and rational defense on the very essence of civilization”…why is it only religious folks calling for the ban of it?
 
hellopeople said:
Wow, that is ridiculous IMO.
Click to expand...
So, what facts do you have to back up this opinion?
So if I use a condom with my wife I am condoning genital activity with anyone and anything…AND supporting cloning? What is this guy talking about.
Click to expand...
With a little serious study one may understand what “this guy [is] talking about”.
Also, if the church’s teachings on contraception is “a clear and rational defense on the very essence of civilization”…why is it only religious folks calling for the ban of it?
Click to expand...
Does anyone else “get it”?
 
Hi. Sorry to jump in here. I have been reading this thread, as it makes a good study in how people think. I am a little confused about the issue, so excuse me if I try to state exactly what is being discussed:

ABC - Sinful (evil) on the basis of preventing pregnancy over long periods of time, which violates the premise that marriages should create offspring.

NFP - Sinful on the same basis, if used over long periods of time to prevent pregnancy in a continual manner (not for just cause like medical or temporary financial difficulties).

Everyone seems to agree on these two points. Then, the disagreement comes in the next points.

ABC - Sinful (by canon law) on the basis that it ‘unnaturally alters’ the act of union in a marriage (This is where PassingThru’s question really comes in. PT is asking ‘why?’ ‘what alteration?’)

NFP - Not sinful by canon law in each individual act because there is no ‘unnatural alteration of the act of union.’ (Again, PT asks the question - “Why or why not?”)

Is this the correct formulation of the disagreement? If so, it seems to me that PT is really simply asking someone to give a clear explanation of the logic of the Magisterium in deciding that ABC ‘unnaturally alters the act’, but NFP does not.

It does not seem to be a question of whether NFP is sinful, as everyone seems to agree that if used indefinitely with incorrect purpose, it is.

Have I understood the discussion correctly?

Thanks,
Minny
 
This is an amazingly frustrating thread. It amazes me how much people can avoid a topic to make a point.

Vico, you have an incredible wealth of knowledge from Catholic teaching. Unfortunately for me, you only seem to be able to rattle of definitions and official Catholic teachings. I respect your knowledge greatly. I have no disagreements with Catholic teachings. However, your ability to relate this to the real world or other people is very weak, at best. If you repeat the same line about ABC being a violation one more time my head may explode. For the love of God, we get it. (Sorry)

Abu, you are taking this discussion back about 200 posts. We just got where we are finally honing in on the original posters question and relating NFP and ABC. Now it will all start over again.

Minny, you are the sole voice of reason so far.

I really thought we were making progress on getting to the meat of just about the only differentiating feature separating NFP and ABC. I have yet to hear how my analogy does not apply in a similar fashion to NFP.

Sorry for the brashness.
 
Yes, NBR (NFP) used in marriage for the right reasons is fine.
Hellopeople
Wow, that is ridiculous IMO. So if I use a condom with my wife I am condoning genital activity with anyone and anything…AND supporting cloning? What is this guy talking about.
Also, if the church’s teachings on contraception is “a clear and rational defense on the very essence of civilization”…why is it only religious folks calling for the ban of it?
Click to expand...
Fr Stephen Torraco is one of the greatest exponents of explaining moral arguments. Let us hope that many more will now go to EWTN to listen, learn and love.

Digest: …“the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning."
Why? “ Because there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act.” You engage in sex while deliberately placing a barrier (chemical or device) to thwart the natural outcome of the act. It is a lie – and because it is thus for self-gratification it opens the door to masturbation, promiscuity and bestiality.

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June, 9, 2006: The violation of this teaching is precisely what led to the AIDS crisis.

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 20, 2006:
The relationship between man and woman, between husband and wife, and the reality of the family are the very basic elements of civilization. Contraception, in principle, attacks all three of these elements by the deliberate rupture of the link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. The condoning of that rupture quite logically opens the door to the “re-definition” of “man” and “woman,” of “husband” and 'wife," and of human life itself. For example, I don’t think it is a coincidence that the use of the term “reproduction” to refer to procreation began with the emergence of contraceptives. On the one hand, even with the emergence of contraception, “reproduction” in no way describes human procreation. Humans do not re-produce. Ford, Chevrolet, and General Motors do that. On the other hand, contraception logically opens the door to cloning, which IS accurately described as reproduction, that is, the reproduction of someone’s genetic code and its imposition on another person who is thereby deprived of his/her own genetic code. [My emphasis].

What in our civilization is clearly and rationally argued? Same–sex marriage? Embryonic stem cell research? Global warming? Abortion? Obviously none, except by those with correctly formed consciences, – due to relativism, secularism and the lack of formation in how to reason, and the lack of formation in faith and morality.

If anyone is unaware of it, it is past time to realize that the world is in chaos due to these grave deficiencies — civilization is in peril.

For those with their heads in the sand: New Documentary Explores Global Demographic Crisis. “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st century,” says demographer Philip Longman in the film. The film argues that the global decline in birthrate, if unchecked, will have devastating social, political and economic effects; it also argues that the issue is studiously ignored in mainstream circles, due to the politically incorrect nature of the solution to the crisis - that is, the rebuilding of the strength of the family as the core unit of society.
See: lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020802.html
 
The above post refers to an anti-Catholic website and refers to Paul VI as an anti-pope.

Faithful Catholics will know that the doctrine against contraception is infallible, and the rationale for the use of NBR (Natural Birth Regulation) for serious reasons is impeccable.
 
Vico said:
I hope you do provide the paper or a reference to it
Click to expand...
Sure - but please understand I am busy at the moment on my “official” research
The crux of the Catholic objection to ABC over NFP is that to show our respect to God as the master of the master of the sources of life *, we must not alter the conjugal act itself, which is not altered by abstaining, but is altered by use of technology to render a naturally fertile period infertile.
  • for example as expressed in HV 13
Click to expand...
Which is just a restatement of what we’ve heard before. It still doesn’t explain WHY the use of technology in this one area is wrong. This exceptionalism has not been proved by formal argument. It smacks of a “God of the gaps”.
So if there is a way for a zygote to occur and not implant, during the sterile periods used with NFP, it would still be natural and so not disrespectful to God as the master of the sources of life.
Click to expand...
“natural” or not, it’s resulting in the loss of precious life, and so should be accompanied by as much weeping and gnashing of teeth as say a death from cancer, which is also “natural”
 
Abu, you’re not really advancing the debate by appeals to authority and appeals to consequences. This Fr Torraco seems like a skilled rhetorician (rather than a skilled arguer), after all he is asking us to believe he understands the reality of the family as an unmarried celibate man!:confused:
 
davidv said:
So, what facts do you have to back up this opinion?

With a little serious study one may understand what “this guy [is] talking about”.

Does anyone else “get it”?
Click to expand...
What do you mean what facts do I have to back it up? If I were to condone condom use within marriage, how would I be condoning having sex with anything and everything? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Please explain it to me if you want to act so condescending about it.

As for the relation to cloning, I have NO IDEA how that works. Please enlighten me.

As for the belief being rational…in my opinion, a belief can only be rational if many people from all different ideologies agree with it. If something is only agreed on by people of very distinct ideologies, and pretty much every else disagrees, than it can’t be based on pure logic.

Instead of giving one line rebuttals about how I don’t know what I am talking about, why don’t you actually try to argue my points?
 
Abu said:
Digest: …“the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning."
Why? “ Because there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act.” You engage in sex while deliberately placing a barrier (chemical or device) to thwart the natural outcome of the act. It is a lie – and because it is thus for self-gratification it opens the door to masturbation, promiscuity and bestiality.
Click to expand...
This makes sense actually. Around the time I started using condoms with my wife I was having impure thoughts about my dog…wait, no I wasn’t.

I can’t believe that ANYONE actually buys what this guy is saying. Condom use leads to BESTIALITY!!! Please, someone post a study that supports this…oh wait, I can already tell you that none exists. This is complete garbage.
 
PassingThru said:
OK. You do not understand the analogy. I used this to give the conversation a frame of reference to further the discussion. This line: “The means of NFP have no such embedded intent. In fact, they are morally neutral as no alteration to the act takes place.” drives home you are missing the point. I will wait to see if anyone else can draw any distinctions.

I know I sound short, and I know you are not trying to be rude. But if you don’t understand the analogy, don’t just say “it doesn’t work”. Important distinction: It doesn’t mean I am right, it only means you are not aware of the intent. I think if you re-read it carefully, you might pick it up. I know Doc did, and I hope others do as well.

(BTW, it works much better with “dead Joe”, due to how strong the message is on both sides. And I hope you can figure out why it doesn’t matter if we kill Joe or sprinkle him with Pixie Dust)
Click to expand...
You seem to misunderstand moral theology. Just because you draw an artificial distinction between “indirect and direct” means does not change the moral culpability. That is why your analogy does not apply.

You intend to kill a person. You do so by setting up a situation where it will occur.

You intend to kill. You use the means necessary to kill. You do kill.

NFP desires to space children, they use a means that does not alter the act. They do not sin.
 
Hello All, May I give an analogy?

Regarding NFP, Here is an analogy. In the analogy, The Marital Act = dinner party. Fertility = Uncle Joe.

Analogy 1: The NFP couple, avoiding conception, .

Husband: We are going to have a dinner party. Do you know if Uncle Joe will make it?
Wife: No, haven’t you heard, Uncle Joe is in Hawaii, he won’t be able to come/
Husband: Well can we still have the party?
Wife: Sure. Uncle Joe won’t mind.

Analogy 2: The NFP couple, also avoiding conception.

Husband: Are we going to have a dinner party?
Wife: Oh, didn’t you know, Uncle Joe is visiting.
Husband: Oh right. You know this month is really difficult to entertain Uncle Joe, with the economy, we just can’t afford it. do you think he’ll mind a raincheck on dinner?
Wife: You know Uncle Joe is very understanding.

Analogy 3: Couple using Contraceptives.

Husband: Regarding the dinner party…
Wife: Yeah, the dinner party, Uncle Joe is totally not invited. I totallly do not want to see uncle Joe. i can’t even enjoy dinner thinking about uncle Joe :mad:
Husband: Well what if he’s around?
Wife: Well, I locked the doors, and caller ID is on, so Uncle Joe cannot show up.
Husband: OK. let’s eat.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Hello All, May I give an analogy?

Regarding NFP, Here is an analogy. In the analogy, The Marital Act = dinner party. Fertility = Uncle Joe.

Analogy 1: The NFP couple, avoiding conception, .

Husband: We are going to have a dinner party. Do you know if Uncle Joe will make it?
Wife: No, haven’t you heard, Uncle Joe is in Hawaii, he won’t be able to come/
Husband: Well can we still have the party?
Wife: Sure. Uncle Joe won’t mind.

Analogy 2: The NFP couple, also avoiding conception.

Husband: Are we going to have a dinner party?
Wife: Oh, didn’t you know, Uncle Joe is visiting.
Husband: Oh right. You know this month is really difficult to entertain Uncle Joe, with the economy, we just can’t afford it. do you think he’ll mind a raincheck on dinner?
Wife: You know Uncle Joe is very understanding.

Analogy 3: Couple using Contraceptives.

Husband: Regarding the dinner party…
Wife: Yeah, the dinner party, Uncle Joe is totally not invited. I totallly do not want to see uncle Joe. i can’t even enjoy dinner thinking about uncle Joe :mad:
Husband: Well what if he’s around?
Wife: Well, I locked the doors, and caller ID is on, so Uncle Joe cannot show up.
Husband: OK. let’s eat.
Click to expand...
I kind of like this analogy! But here it is from the viewpoint of Doc and Passing Thru, etc.

In the analogy, The Marital Act = dinner party. Fertility = Uncle Joe.

Analogy 1: Couple using Contraceptives.
Wife: I’d love start hosting a monthly dinner party, but I really don’t want Uncle Joe to attend. (and they have just reason for that desire)
Husband: What if he is around when we hold the party?
Wife: Well, we just won’t invite him, and if he find out, we will tell him bluntly why we have serious reasons to exclude him from the party and we will turn him away.
Husband: Sounds reasonable…I look forward to the dinner party.

Analogy 2: The NFP couple, avoiding conception, .
Wife:Wife: I’d love start hosting a monthly dinner party, but I really don’t want Uncle Joe to attend. (and they have just reason for that desire).
Husband: What if he is around when we hold the party?
Wife: Well lucky for us, I know Uncle Joe goes away on business the last week of every month, so we can just hold the dinner party on that week every month.
Husband: Sounds reasonable…do you think Uncle Joe would be upset with us never holding a dinner party with him in town? Do you think Uncle Joe will figure out that we are rejecting him and are avoiding having him at the party?
Wife: How can he feel rejected when he isn’t even in town.
Husband: Well, b/c we never have a dinner party when he is in town and the only time we do have one is when he is gone. He may want to know why
Wife: He just isn’t here when we have the dinner party, how can he feel rejected when we don’t invite him when he is not in town.
Husband: 🤷
 
XinMinny said:
ABC - Sinful (evil) on the basis of preventing pregnancy over long periods of time, which violates the premise that marriages should create offspring.
Click to expand...
No, this is not why abc is considered evil. ABC seperates the unitive and procreative (as defined by the church, which is different than most anyone’s understanding of the term) from the marital embrace. That is why the church teaches it is evil.
 
Rico_S said:
I kind of like this analogy! But here it is from the viewpoint of Doc and Passing Thru, etc.

In the analogy, The Marital Act = dinner party. Fertility = Uncle Joe.

Analogy 1: Couple using Contraceptives.
Wife: I’d love start hosting a monthly dinner party, but I really don’t want Uncle Joe to attend. (and they have just reason for that desire)
Husband: What if he is around when we hold the party?
Wife: Well, we just won’t invite him, and if he find out, we will tell him bluntly why we have serious reasons to exclude him from the party and we will turn him away.
Husband: Sounds reasonable…I look forward to the dinner party.

Analogy 2: The NFP couple, avoiding conception, .
Wife:Wife: I’d love start hosting a monthly dinner party, but I really don’t want Uncle Joe to attend. (and they have just reason for that desire).
Husband: What if he is around when we hold the party?
Wife: Well lucky for us, I know Uncle Joe goes away on business the last week of every month, so we can just hold the dinner party on that week every month.
Husband: Sounds reasonable…do you think Uncle Joe would be upset with us never holding a dinner party with him in town? Do you think Uncle Joe will figure out that we are rejecting him and are avoiding having him at the party?
Wife: How can he feel rejected when he isn’t even in town.
Husband: Well, b/c we never have a dinner party when he is in town and the only time we do have one is when he is gone. He may want to know why
Wife: He just isn’t here when we have the dinner party, how can he feel rejected when we don’t invite him when he is not in town.
Husband: 🤷
Click to expand...
But in the contracepting scenario, Uncle Joe is treated rudely. I’m Italian-American, and treating Uncle Joe in such a bluntly rude fashion might mean families don’t speak for years. 😃

Also, say Uncle Joe changes his plans and comes over? The NFP couple doesn’t kick him out.

And I had three analogies: Don’t forget, Uncle Joe comes over once a month pretty steady. Sometimes the couple can give him dinner. Sometimes they can only offer an evening of playing cards.
 
PassingThru said:
I really thought we were making progress on getting to the meat of just about the only differentiating feature separating NFP and ABC. I have yet to hear how my analogy does not apply in a similar fashion to NFP.

Sorry for the brashness.
Click to expand...
It is very simple. With NFP the couple engages in the act unaltered. The act is ordered toward life as designed by God .Any information gathered regarding the biological processes is used to space children for legitimate reasons. The act is not disordered in anyway.

With contraception they couple may have the same intent to space children. They also intend, and do, alter the act. It is a disordered act.

I am sure it has been mentioned here but if you need cash you may get a legitimate job or rob a bank. Either way you may legitimately need cash, but one way is very immoral and one is not.
 
Rico_S said:
In the analogy, The Marital Act = dinner party. Fertility = Uncle Joe.

Analogy 2: The NFP couple, avoiding conception, .
Wife:Wife: I’d love start hosting a monthly dinner party, but I really don’t want Uncle Joe to attend. (and they have just reason for that desire).
Husband: What if he is around when we hold the party?
Wife: Well lucky for us, I know Uncle Joe goes away on business the last week of every month, so we can just hold the dinner party on that week every month.
Husband: Sounds reasonable…do you think Uncle Joe would be upset with us never holding a dinner party with him in town? Do you think Uncle Joe will figure out that we are rejecting him and are avoiding having him at the party?
Wife: How can he feel rejected when he isn’t even in town.
Husband: Well, b/c we never have a dinner party when he is in town and the only time we do have one is when he is gone. He may want to know why
Wife: He just isn’t here when we have the dinner party, how can he feel rejected when we don’t invite him when he is not in town.
Husband: 🤷
Click to expand...
I would say Joe does not equal fertility. Joe equals conception.

Fertility is not suppressed, actively or passively, by NFP. This is what Passing wants us to believe, but it is not so. One of the reasons NFP is legitimate is because the act is not changed. Nature manages fertility.

No one is required to hope for conception in each and every act.
 
Fix,
I believe that you are misunderstanding PassingThru. PT has a simple question:
How does ABC alter the act in a way the NFP does not? Logically, PT is saying that it does not work to say “Well, ABC is not natural.” It does not work, because NFP is actually intellectual manipulation of nature. So, PT is saying that you or the Church or whoever can define ABC as unnatural and NFP as natural. Then it is a matter of faith. PT is OK with that. PT is merely saying that to do so is a matter of definition, not logic.

PT - Have you noticed that several here have taken the idea that ABC and NFP are equivalent and have run with that to its conclusion? The conclusion is that ABC for spacing is not a sin. Have you noticed that? What is your thought about that conclusion?

Minny
 
Rico_S said:
I kind of like this analogy! But here it is from the viewpoint of Doc and Passing Thru, etc.

In the analogy, The Marital Act = dinner party. Fertility = Uncle Joe.

Analogy 1: Couple using Contraceptives.
Wife: I’d love start hosting a monthly dinner party, but I really don’t want Uncle Joe to attend. (and they have just reason for that desire)
Husband: What if he is around when we hold the party?
Wife: Well, we just won’t invite him, and if he find out, we will tell him bluntly why we have serious reasons to exclude him from the party and we will turn him away.
Husband: Sounds reasonable…I look forward to the dinner party.

Analogy 2: The NFP couple, avoiding conception, .
Wife:Wife: I’d love start hosting a monthly dinner party, but I really don’t want Uncle Joe to attend. (and they have just reason for that desire).
Husband: What if he is around when we hold the party?
Wife: Well lucky for us, I know Uncle Joe goes away on business the last week of every month, so we can just hold the dinner party on that week every month.
Husband: Sounds reasonable…do you think Uncle Joe would be upset with us never holding a dinner party with him in town? Do you think Uncle Joe will figure out that we are rejecting him and are avoiding having him at the party?
Wife: How can he feel rejected when he isn’t even in town.
Husband: Well, b/c we never have a dinner party when he is in town and the only time we do have one is when he is gone. He may want to know why
Wife: He just isn’t here when we have the dinner party, how can he feel rejected when we don’t invite him when he is not in town.
Husband: 🤷
Click to expand...
Excellent analogies, and seem closer to the reality of NFP/ABC distinction to me:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top