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

[PassingThru]

I think that part of the problem everyone is having is that we are trying to explain something which makes sense from a Catholic point of view, but not from a non-Catholic point of view. The way that most people in our current society view sexual relations is completely antithetical to the way that the Catholic Church views sexual relations, and it is really really hard to explain what we are saying when the other person is “speaking a different language,” if you see what I mean.

I think what you are describing is “faith”. Which, as I and others have said, is a perfectly valid reason for your, any anyones, beliefs.

I do, however, reject your line about how others view sexuality. This goes right back in to speculation that is drawing a false line between people. That couple in the pew next to you may have the same thoughts and beliefs on marriage, sexuality, intimacy and everything else, yet fail to draw the distinction we are discussing here. We are hundreds of posts in, and still can’t say why one is right and one is wrong. To conclude that they somehow view sexuality differently based on that, it think, is an error.

Let me re-summarize. Most Catholics do not follow its teachings on ABC. To think that most Catholics, therefore, do not view sex as the Church would like, is probably not the case. I would think they do not see the distinction, just as we can not even put words down to explain this distinction.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

May I ask a question, somewhat rhetorically?

If ABC and NFP are exactly the same in function (limit pregnancy)

and

ABC and NFP have the same, give or take effectiveness.

Why would someone choose ABC over NFP? Why don’t all embrace NFP?

 

[PassingThru]

Passing Thru,

Quick question:

Have you been holding out on us? Do you have a formulation which would logically declare NFP to be moral, but ABC not?

I don’t. I was hoping maybe we could get to one by working together. Are you game to make a suggestion of how to start?

Or, maybe you have thought about this quite a bit, and you don’t have one, so you have already decided that it must be a matter of faith.

I am beginning to think that as a non-Catholic, I won’t ever understand it. I can’t find a logical formulation. It doesn’t seem any one else here can. So it must be that it starts from faith.

I would love it to be proven wrong.

~Minny

I have no idea how to separate the two.

The only reason this plays out the way it does, is that the Church has created a huge trove of knowledge to clarify why NFP is good, yet ABC is bad. This allows us to look at the reasoning. I don’t think we have found one single piece of reasoning that doesn’t require one to assume ABC is immoral in order for it to stand on its own merit.

What I have just described is the basis for any logical thought process. If it fails the above, it is NOT a matter of logic, it is a matter of faith. Which is fine. But you must be able to then say “This reasoning is faith”. You can not hold up a line of logic, and pretend that it makes sense on its own, when in fact you must first share faith. That is a contradiction of huge proportions, and I wish I could get other to understand this.

And I have thought a lot about it. I still can not find one piece of reason that can differentiate the two.

If you are asking me personally? Well, you may have noticed that I don’t really mention what I think about any of this. I only comment on the logic, or assertions, or assumptions. I have no idea which sexual practices are right. Fortunately, that is not required to compare NFP and ABC. That is the point. I don’t have to be right on anything. ABC is wrong? Great. ABC is as moral as donating to the poor? Awesome. Still irrelevant to distinguishing between the two. If there is a reason WHY ABC is wrong, then we can apply those reasons, step by step, to NFP. They either apply or they do not. That is why I get so uptight when people say one of these reasons, fail to explain how it applys to NFP, then appeal back to Church teaching, or some other authority. It is unnecessary, unless of course your reason failed, and you just can’t bring yourself to admit it…

Anyway, that was a ramble…

 

[PassingThru]

May I ask a question, somewhat rhetorically?

If ABC and NFP are exactly the same in function (limit pregnancy)

and

ABC and NFP have the same, give or take effectiveness.

Why would someone choose ABC over NFP? Why don’t all embrace NFP?

You mean, assuming moral parity?

I don’t think in the real world they get anywhere near the 99% figure. Practiced correctly yes. But we know post people are not that bright, right?
Its simpler.
Far more options.
Can be permanent, if needed.
Time investment.

I am sure you could come up with more…

 

[Vico]

Vico this is your quote: Basis: it is immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution. …
But is this the reasoning used by the Church.? … (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile…
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, 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. …

You will not find the specific reasoning I have given in Humanae Vitae items 11 and 12, or in item 16 on recourse to infertile periods, but in item 17 and the referenced address of Pope Pius XII:

“These limits are expressly imposed because of the reverence due to the whole human organism and its natural functions, in the light of the principles We stated earlier, and in accordance with a correct understanding of the “principle of totality” enunciated by Our predecessor Pope Pius XII. (20)” (20) See Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 846.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

Here you mention infertility for reasons independent of their will, which is not an intentional disorder, so it surely is not contrary to the Church teaching. Sterility is no impediment to marriage.

Also unitive and procreative words are not specifically in the canons of the Church, but the principle is there in the marriage covenant cannon 1055 "The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, … " 1096 “…that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation”, and 1051 “Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them.”
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

Some additional reasons given against artificial birth control in HV are:

1. increased temptation to infidelity and lower moral standards
2. may loose the reverence due to a woman
3. may no longer considering her carefully and affectionately as his partner
4. possible imposition of artificial birth control on the public through public authorities

 

[Doc_Keele]

You mean, assuming moral parity?

I don’t think in the real world they get anywhere near the 99% figure. Practiced correctly yes. But we know post people are not that bright, right?
Its simpler.
Far more options.
Can be permanent, if needed.
Time investment.

I am sure you could come up with more…

The figures for NFP are not from a random selection of the population. Therefore the figures from these studies cannot be extrapolated to the general population. All you’re showing in most of the studies is that the people who are willing to practice NFP and stick with it make it work well. But if you had random allocation of NFP vs ABC and did “intention to treat” analyses, I bet NFP would not come out as well at all.

 

[Abu]

Greg27 #482
Personally I think methods of periodic or total continence are a method of contraception…I won’t argue about the morality …in light of the booming global population and shortages of food, housing and raw materials, I think it is reasonable for couples to use proportional methods to limit conception according to conscience.

Two errors, here.
First, since it IS a moral problem – the moral problem arises when we oppose nature – and the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse is for babies and it’s for bonding, within marriage, where children can be reared with a father and mother in a stable family unit, we better get it right. We get it right when we use the marital act without deliberately, selfishly, putting a chemical or physical barrier to thwart the meaning of that act. With NBR the couple puts no selfist barrier, they merely use the God-given regulation of the physiology created by God. To ONLY do this, or to do this without serious reasons would show a moral intent against God’s purpose for the act – bonding and procreation. Trying to ignore or buck this fact is ignoring or bucking God and His Son Jesus of Nazareth.

Secondly, we need to dump the rubbish in our minds about the “population bomb” fantasy of Paul Ehrlich and his puerile disinformation. The countries of the West are in population free fall and the rest of the world is following. Get real.

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

 

[mark_a]

OK, so it is sinful to artificially remove fertility. But why? Is it sinful if I take a pain killer to artificially remove pain?

And there we have it.

 

[Abu]

hellopeople

With contraception you deliberately thwart the natural purpose of the act while engaging in it.
With a pain killer you aid the natural body process of keeping better health and well-being. The art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is a wonderful thing.

It’s not rocket science.

 

[hellopeople]

hellopeople

With contraception you deliberately thwart the natural purpose of the act while engaging in it.
With a pain killer you aid the natural body process of keeping better health and well-being. The art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is a wonderful thing.

It’s not rocket science.

Well my goal is to have sex and not have a baby.

 

[Abu]

Hellopeople
my goal is to have sex and not have a baby

That’s why reason shows that NBR is fine for serious reasons and contraception is not – because the natural law is violated in the latter through muddled thinking and selfism which deliberately pervert a main purpose for the act. NBR also has a 99% success rate, contraception is real low.

 

[Doc_Keele]

If removal of normal healthy functioning tissue is not allowed, then transplant from living donors can’t be allowed then?

 

[St_Francis]

If removal of normal healthy functioning tissue is not allowed, then transplant from living donors can’t be allowed then?

For a proportionate reason. Some who had a retinal problem could not donate their eyes to someone simply because they wanted eyes of that color.

Moreover, the donor would have to be left *fully functioning *in order to donate, or at least not with depleted functioning.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Right, so that rules out kidney donation. So the Catholic Church doesn’t allow people to donate a kidney to help someone else?

 

[St_Francis]

Right, so that rules out kidney donation. So the Catholic Church doesn’t allow people to donate a kidney to help someone else?

Human beings have two kidneys. One may be donated if the donor is left with a fully-functioning kidney. (I was under the impression that the “Doc” in your name stood for medical doctor, but maybe I was wrong?)

This is not an important issue in the US, where transplants and medicine in general are pretty heavily regulated; however, in other parts of the world where extremely poor people are enticed to donate organs, it could be.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Yes, I am a medical doctor…
and I even know enough maths to work out that one kidney has half the function of two!
the liver regrows, but a kidney doesn’t

 

[Abu]

Doc Keele
So the Catholic Church doesn’t allow people to donate a kidney to help someone else?

The teaching of Christ’s Church is consistent with right reason, unlike the confused opinions of some.

[T]he Gospel of life is to be celebrated above all in daily living, which should be filled with self-giving love for others. . . . Over and above such outstanding moments, there is an everyday heroism, made up of gestures of sharing, big or small, which build up an authentic culture of life. A particularly praiseworthy example of such gestures is the donation of organs, performed in an ethically acceptable manner, with a view to offering a chance of health and even of life itself to the sick who sometimes have no other hope (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, # 86).

Unlike the lie of contraception, and like the correct use of NBR, the art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is the work of reasonable people…

 

[Doc_Keele]

The teaching of Christ’s Church is consistent with right reason, unlike the confused opinions of some.

[T]he Gospel of life is to be celebrated above all in daily living, which should be filled with self-giving love for others. . . . Over and above such outstanding moments, there is an everyday heroism, made up of gestures of sharing, big or small, which build up an authentic culture of life. A particularly praiseworthy example of such gestures is the donation of organs, performed in an ethically acceptable manner, with a view to offering a chance of health and even of life itself to the sick who sometimes have no other hope (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, # 86).

Unlike the lie of contraception, and like the correct use of NBR, the art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is the work of reasonable people…

Abu, arguing ad hominem is a low tactic.
I do realise that the Catholic Church allows organ donation, I was exploring the logical implication of St Francis’ statement.

There’s plenty of things that the Church comes out with which don’t seem rooted in right reason.

 

[St_Francis]

Yes, I am a medical doctor…
and I even know enough maths to work out that one kidney has half the function of two!
the liver regrows, but a kidney doesn’t

So, if I donate a kidney to someone, will I be impaired? It was my understanding that donors were fine afterwards.

 

[St_Francis]

I think what you are describing is “faith”. Which, as I and others have said, is a perfectly valid reason for your, any anyones, beliefs.

Well, when we do that, we get comments about “appealing to authority” and “dishonest” arguments.

I do, however, reject your line about how others view sexuality.

I was thinking about this and realised that I should have put it “would allow people to think” that way.

This goes right back in to speculation that is drawing a false line between people. That couple in the pew next to you may have the same thoughts and beliefs on marriage, sexuality, intimacy and everything else, yet fail to draw the distinction we are discussing here. We are hundreds of posts in, and still can’t say why one is right and one is wrong. To conclude that they somehow view sexuality differently based on that, it think, is an error.

Actually, no, I totally disagree with you. In fact, I think that all the responses here have shown me that there is a huge difference between the way people who have grappled with the NFP issue and come to understand it see the marital act and the way people who do not understand the immorality of abc see it.

The problem is that your responses indicate that you see it in the more widely-distributed way, and thus do not yet understand that there *is *a different way to see it, much less that you are there.

Let me re-summarize. Most Catholics do not follow its teachings on ABC. To think that most Catholics, therefore, do not view sex as the Church would like, is probably not the case. I would think they do not see the distinction, just as we can not even put words down to explain this distinction.

A point of truth is not subject to a vote. The fact that some, many, most, or even almost all Catholics believe something contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church only means that those Catholics are in error, not that the truth taught is wrong.