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

[PassingThru]

I think you are right that there does need to be more discussion and awareness made concerning NFP and the difference between contraception and the reasons contraception are wrong. Nevertheless, I think the reason many Catholics and the vast majority of non-Catholics accept ABC is not just due to a lack of catechesis, and that the primary reasons are the media and social culture that accepts it at large and man’s innate selfishness that says that he wants to do what he wants, especially regarding sex. Man has basically discovered the way to selfishly have the pleasures of sex without the responsibility and is choosing that rather than God’s will.

Totally off point here. I just want to point out that statistically speaking, use of ABC is very close in most denominations, to include Catholics. Your use of “many Catholics and vast majority of non-Catholics” is a bit misleading. I think we are all pretty much in the same boat here.

(could get slaughtered for saying that… )

 

[Vico]

… I will summarize: Natural Act is one instance at a time, with no ABC. Everything outside of this definition (patterns, intent, motives, etc) falls outside this domain. Yes? …

Yes, because that is the way I catagorized it where natural act means coitus. Abstinance is then certainly in a different category. We can modify the groupings to be:

1. Valid marriage and
2. Natural behavior.

Then the intention to exclude children from marriage without serious motive is unnatural behavior and includes both ABC and NFP and ABC is also unnatural behavior because it offends against God as master of the sources of creation.

Pope Pius XII expressed these two key concepts we are examining:

1. “the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint”, and from his predecessor Pope Pius XI he quoted
2. “any attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.”

Is this concrete?

ABC = artificial birth control
NFP = natural family planning

 

[una_fides]

Now quid pro quo. You have avoided with great completeness any attempts to answer to the HOWs and WHYs that I have brought up.

If I missed answering anything you may have said, it was certainly not intentional. Regarding your following questions, unfortunately, this issue is more complex than being able to only provide simple yes or no answers, but I will answer your questions with explanation.

Please answer these direct questions as best you can:
NFP is more than a series of individual choices to abstain. Y/N?

Yes, NFP is more than just abstaining in that it also involves gathering information about your body’s natural cycles. In reading your comments it seems that this portion is where you seem to get hung up in that you conclude that since a wife is monitoring her body with the intention to avoid conception that this act of bodily monitoring coupled with abstinence therefore makes the marital act unnatural or in some way altered. True the couple’s behavior is altered, but altering behavior and altering the actual marital act itself are two different things.

Successful, long term practice of NFP in some way alters/changes sex between a couple. Y/N?

The answer depends on your definition of the word “alters” or “changes.” If by “alters/changes” you mean that the couple now only engages in sex at certain times whereas before they might have sex more sporadically then yes it does “alter/change” this behavior, but the sexual act itself is not altered or changed. The long term practice does not make each sexual act different or changed, only the routine in which the couple engages in the actions. Altering patters of behavior does not equate to altering one’s body or the marital act itself. You are not even comparing apples and oranges, as at least those are both fruits.

Abstinence is not intrinsically good. It can be used improperly. Y/N?

Yes, abstinence can absolutely be used improperly such as when a couple without a grave reason would abstain from the primary purpose of their unity, which is to procreate. Nevertheless, if a couple mutually decides to abstain from sex let’s say 6 out of 7 days of the week because they do not have time due to their busy schedule or for spiritual reasons to devote more time to prayer and fasting, their behavior would be altered, but they most certainly would not be committing any sin in doing so. If they continued this schedule for years and years on the large scale that would not render their actions sinful or wrong in any way.

I also asked this previously. Please respond, as its answer could easily end our disagreement:

Your contention is that each act of sex, as long as it is unaltered, is permissible. (Within the range of our discussion, no throwing in rape, abuse, etc) This alone satisfies 2) Do Not Offend Against The Nature Of The Act. If this is your position, please confirm.

Close, but this is not exactly my position. I would clarify that you cannot offend against the natural design of the marital act.

You cannot demonstrate that abstinence alters the marital act in any way even on a large scale as the marital act is still left in tact without any artificial altering.

I profess there is MUCH MORE behind meeting that standard than simply not using a rubber. I assume you are not interested in these matters, as you keep going back to “unaltered marital act”. Tell me if this is accurate, or not. If it is not, TELL US WHY!

It is not merely the non-altering because if that were the definition it would include any altering whatsoever and as you pointed out couples can alter their behavior and that would by that limited definition make the act wrong. But as I pointed out, couples can alter their behavior in abstaining from the marital act for other reasons other than just avoiding pregnancy. Thus, the definition must be more specific in that it is not just the altering of the act on a large scale but specifically the difference and immorality of ABC (as compared to NFP) is that it artificially changes the marital act itself with the intention of avoiding conception. NFP does not artificially change the marital act itself and determining the woman’s natural cycle is not an immoral action.

It seems that you have difficulty understanding why ABC is morally unjust. It cannot be justified in that it invades the woman’s natural-God-given ability to conceive and takes that away from her. No one has a right to take away the ability to procreate except for God, and God has designed a woman to be able to conceive during her fertile periods. The reason that man must have a grave reason to avoid intercourse during the fertile period is that the reason must be so great as to avoid the purpose of the marriage, which is to procreate. But to avoid is much different than to directly step in and remove the ability to conceive contrary to God’s natural plan and design.

I hope you find these answers sufficient. If you still have any questions or if there’s anything that you feel that I might have missed, please let me know, and I will be happy to discuss further with you.

 

[PassingThru]

Yes, because that is the way I catagorized it where natural act means coitus. Abstinance is then certainly in a different category. We can modify the groupings to be:

1. Valid marriage and
2. Natural behavior.

Then the intention to exclude children from marriage without serious motive is unnatural behavior and includes both ABC and NFP and ABC is also unnatural behavior because it offends against God as master of the sources of creation.

Pope Pius XII expressed these two key concepts we are examining:

1. “the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint”, and from his predecessor Pope Pius XI he quoted
2. “any attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no “indication” or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one.”

Is this concrete?

ABC = artificial birth control
NFP = natural family planning

Fair enough. I can see you really like to stick to the books. I will make one more question, and maybe get you to actually answer it head on. Worth a shot.

Also, using the names to distinguish between the two is completely, well, silly. I could just as easily say:

NFP = BBC = Behavioral Birth Control

but that of course proves nothing. Its just a label.

But here is my question/assertion:

In your second point it includes the line "any attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral. I contend NFP violates this rule. Its almost a definition of the goal of NFP. So, can NFP fit that definition or not? That is my only question to you.

This discussion feels similar to an exercise in case law. We are trying to figure out under which statute to prosecute the case. I guess it is just a matter of view point. We disagree.

I feel that you fully understand my point, and have previously agreed to it in some ways. But we seem to fall back and re-categorize it elsewhere, then ignore it. I do not accept that.

I look at it this way. Through all our back and forth, I see NFP and ABC to be incredibly similar on almost every front, as we have detailed. We have one last real issue that we don’t agree on. I accept rejecting ABC because it is artificial, and as a matter of faith it is found to be unacceptable. I really do. However, I reject the official lists, definitions, rules, and conditions that the Church details to defend NFP yet reject ABC. I do this because I find NFP and ABC meets and fails those items in an almost identical way. We are down to arguing semantics on one rule!!! (I do not mean that these teachings are wrong, rather, they fail to make a convincing case either way.)

I am fine with not coming to an agreement, as it is rather unlikely.

Are there any others reading this that understand or at least see the distinction I am making? I feel like Una, Vico and I are in a large empty room here?!?!

 

[Vico]

… In your second point it includes the line "any attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral. I contend NFP violates this rule. Its almost a definition of the goal of NFP. So, can NFP fit that definition or not? … I accept rejecting ABC because it is artificial, and as a matter of faith it is found to be unacceptable. … I find NFP and ABC meets and fails those items in an almost identical way.

NFP does not fit that definition because abstainance is not a conjugal act, and since it is not an act there is also no development of its natural consequences (which means fertilization and development of the baby). The inherent force of the conjugal act is not impeded.

I believe your view is that limiting the conjugal act exclusively to the naturally sterile periods, or the use of artificial birth control, violates the overall procreative purpose of a marriage.

That is also what Pope Pius XII said, but then he said one must also consider motives for the abstinance. For artificial birth control, there is never an acceptable motive, because it is a modification of the conjugal act, for abstinance there may be an acceptable motive, because periodic sterility is naturally occurring.

The motive is the long term factor present in each act. In each conjugal act or abstainance one must consider both motive and modification of the specific act.

 

[PassingThru]

NFP does not fit that definition because abstainance is not a conjugal act, and since it is not an act there is also no development of its natural consequences (which means fertilization and development of the baby). The inherent force of the conjugal act is not impeded.

I believe your view is that limiting the conjugal act exclusively to the naturally sterile periods, or the use of artificial birth control, violates the overall procreative purpose of a marriage.

That is also what Pope Pius XII said, but then he said one must also consider motives for the abstinance. For artificial birth control, there is never an acceptable motive, because it is a modification of the conjugal act, for abstinance there may be an acceptable motive, because periodic sterility is naturally occurring.

The motive is the long term factor present in each act. In each conjugal act or abstainance one must consider both motive and modification of the specific act.

Easy enough. I think it fits. You say it falls outside, namely by pulling NFP back to only a question motive. You say there is never an acceptable motive for ABC, because of the basic principle of what ABC is. I think motive is totally separate and independent. I think, on these points, we will have to agree to disagree. Although I don’t sense much agreement!

 

[Vico]

PassingThru, you said: “Easy enough. I think it fits. You say it falls outside, namely by pulling NFP back to only a question motive. You say there is never an acceptable motive for ABC, because of the basic principle of what ABC is. I think motive is totally separate and independent.”

You mean that motive is not tied to ABC or NPF specifically? I don’t think it is either, rather independent. The difference lies in this: abstinance does not modify a specific act or its consequences, artificial birth control does, so they are fundumentally different.

 

[Tracy_Spenst]

Now that the scriptural reasons have been discussed, let’s talk about the practical reasons for NFP:

Men: No matter how long you’ve been with the same woman, we “get the priviledge” of turning into a raging bull every month. It’s the highest quality, with no physical barriers. No, we don’t want to wait, but we need to cast aside instant gratification in favor of depth for our wives and families. It builds appreciation and desire, not just for the physical intimacy, but the emotional and spiritual as well. For how many men does sex become a routine and is taken for granted? How many men will get bored and develop wandering eyes due to the routine? When sex is not an option, it’s natural to get re-aquainted with the woman friend you fell in love with. Nothing else to do, might as well talk. Real communication occurs, a renewed interest in your one-person fan club. More sacrifice = more intensity; physically, emotionally and spiritually. Love grows. Anticipation. Less likely for lust of pop culture’s hotties to ruin our marriages. Less likely for our kids to grow up without dads. More sacrifice increases our capacity to sacrifice. It makes us stronger and able to handle more responsibility.

Women: There’s more emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy with NFP, especially if you can help your man get more religion, more Catholic. The reasons are good and just. Pop culture media continues it’s assault on traditional marriage by tempting us men with hotties and other instant gratification that takes us farther from true, romantic love. Men (and women) are growing tired and frustrated with the unsatisfying, never-ending shallow pursuit of highs that don’t last, lust, materialism, etc. Men need adventure. NFP is adventure. A raging bull awaits.

If we don’t take steps to build stronger marriages, the history of the world will pay the price. Pop culture media has led us astray for too long. Who are they? They’re nobody. Don’t conform to their shallow ways. Come back to the deep.

Man on Fire–best response yet! Thanks for putting into words what NFP gives couples. Those who use ABC just don’t get it; we sure didn’t. Why pass up having a monthly honeymoon for overuse and boredom?

Thanks!
~Tracy

 

[PassingThru]

PassingThru, you said: “Easy enough. I think it fits. You say it falls outside, namely by pulling NFP back to only a question motive. You say there is never an acceptable motive for ABC, because of the basic principle of what ABC is. I think motive is totally separate and independent.”

You mean that motive is not tied to ABC or NPF specifically? I don’t think it is either, rather independent. The difference lies in this: abstinance does not modify a specific act or its consequences, artificial birth control does, so they are fundumentally different.

OK, but you specifically said there is never an acceptable motive for ABC. I didn’t make that up. And if you believe that (which is fine, and I think you do) then of course you don’t want to have anything to do with ABC. Can you at least own up to it? Its not a trap, it helps to explain why you feel what you do.

And I agree. They are fundamentally different. ABC does indeed modify a specific act, and its consequence. NFP modifies the timing (behavior?) of a series of acts, and its consequence. They are different.

 

[mark_a]

. For how many men does sex become a routine and is taken for granted? How many men will get bored and develop wandering eyes due to the routine?

Personnally, I think routine (scheduled), taken-for-granted sex helps keep men from developing wandering eyes. Oh, how often men wish to be taken for granted sexually.

 

[Vico]

OK, but you specifically said there is never an acceptable motive for ABC. I didn’t make that up. And if you believe that (which is fine, and I think you do) then of course you don’t want to have anything to do with ABC. Can you at least own up to it? Its not a trap, it helps to explain why you feel what you do.

And I agree. They are fundamentally different. ABC does indeed modify a specific act, and its consequence. NFP modifies the timing (behavior?) of a series of acts, and its consequence. They are different.

Yes, I can see how my remark is confusing the issue, that there is never an acceptable motive for ABC. I did not express it logically, it should have been that ABC is never acceptable regardless of motive. The logic is:

1. It is not right to modify an instance of the conjugal act and it’s consequences. (ABC).
2. Each instance of conjugal relations or abstinance must have right motive.
   (NFP or ABC)

You said: “NFP modifies the timing (behavior?) of a series of acts, and its consequence.”

NFP is intention is to reduce the possibility of conception by avoiding conception during the most fertile times. There is no error in conjugal relations during lower fertility times. There is only motive of the abstinance to consider.

 

[PassingThru]

Yes, I can see how my remark is confusing the issue, that there is never an acceptable motive for ABC. I did not express it logically, it should have been that ABC is never acceptable regardless of motive. The logic is:

1. It is not right to modify an instance of the conjugal act and it’s consequences. (ABC).
2. Each instance of conjugal relations or abstinance must have right motive.
   (NFP or ABC)

You said: “NFP modifies the timing (behavior?) of a series of acts, and its consequence.”

NFP is intention is to reduce the possibility of conception by avoiding conception during the most fertile times. There is no error in conjugal relations during lower fertility times. There is only motive of the abstinance to consider.

We agree to disagree. Well, I agree, but you don’t seem to…

If you prefer not to agree to disagree, then I contend your interpretation is wrong, NFP does violate the natural act and its consequence. That works too.

 

[PassingThru]

Man on Fire–best response yet! Thanks for putting into words what NFP gives couples. Those who use ABC just don’t get it; we sure didn’t. Why pass up having a monthly honeymoon for overuse and boredom?

Thanks!
~Tracy

BTW, I am not trying to ignore you and ManonFire. I actually agree with what you guys are saying. What you are describing is exactly why NFP can be hugely important and helpful in a relationship. Now, I don’t think those things are inherent to NFP for everyone, but that is not the point. For you guys, NFP fulfills everything, which can be nothing but good!

 

[una_fides]

We agree to disagree. Well, I agree, but you don’t seem to…

If you prefer not to agree to disagree, then I contend your interpretation is wrong, NFP does violate the natural act and its consequence. That works too.

Passing Thru,

You continue to say that NFP “violates the natural act and its consequence.” Can you please prove in exactly what way NFP does so and how by doing so can be considered immoral.

Ultimately our goal in these discussions is to discern whether it is moral to use one and not the other (or as the op put it, whether it is “ok” to use one…). Can you please demonstrate how NFP is a morally offensive act by its “violation of the natural act”? If not, I think we have already demonstrated how ABC does offend morality in a different way of violation against the natural act in that it steps in to artificially alter the marital act itself. NFP does not do so.

I would also like to know whether you accept that God designed the purpose of marriage as to produce children (i.e. to be fruitful and multiply). If you deny this foundation, that may be what is causing the subsequent differing of thought particularly pertaining to ABC.

Also if you believe ABC to be morally justifiable can you please state your reasons why.

 

[PassingThru]

Passing Thru,

You continue to say that NFP “violates the natural act and its consequence.” Can you please prove in exactly what way NFP does so and how by doing so can be considered immoral. **OK, simplest definition possible: Sex > Fertilization > Child. As basic as it gets. **

Ultimately our goal in these discussions is to discern whether it is moral to use one and not the other (or as the op put it, whether it is “ok” to use one…). Can you please demonstrate how NFP is a morally offensive act by its “violation of the natural act”? If not, I think we have already demonstrated how ABC does offend morality in a different way of violation against the natural act in that it steps in to artificially alter the marital act itself. NFP does not do so. I am not, in any way, making a case for ABC over NFP. I am saying, by the given definition NFP also violates this aspect of sex. What I see happening is a focus on only the act itself, which ABC obviously violates. Yet at the same time, NFP has to alter “the natural act and its consequence” else it wouldn’t do anything, and we would not be having this conversation. We have yet to accurately “pin down” what that is. I am hearing, in summary, that sense NFP doesnt alter the act itself, it can not violate that rule. I see that as a dodge, and using a narrow definition to never really describe how it achieves its results. We just kind of sweep that aspect under the rug, so to speak. It HAS to alter “the natural act and its consequence” or it wouldn’t be “99.9%” effective! It just does so in a different manner. I am using a broader definition of natural act, to include its natural occurrence. Or lets just say, men and womens natural sexual relationship. It does this by its very definition. On that I will not budge. Maybe that is it. I guess if you don’t attach any weight to couples natural sex life, there is nothing to violate? Hmmmm.

I would also like to know whether you accept that God designed the purpose of marriage as to produce children (i.e. to be fruitful and multiply). **Agree. **If you deny this foundation, that may be what is causing the subsequent differing of thought particularly pertaining to ABC. ** Nope. What I am saying is that if NFP also violates this principal, than how is ABC any different? I am starting in neutral, with neither ABC or NFP as acceptable. No prejudice. (Really! ) But I see NFP and ABC both violating the rule, but in a different fashion. That is all. **

Also if you believe ABC to be morally justifiable can you please state your reasons why.** Again, I don’t know why you keep going to this. I think it is just ingrained that that is where I am heading. It is not. I have said a dozen times that BOTH violate the principal, as defined here in many different ways. I have yet to see how NFP does not violate this principal. The basics of what I get are “the **act ****is unchanged, ergo, its good”. I feel that ignores the overriding aspect of NFP and makes it sound like a checklist.

 

[ManOnFire]

Personnally, I think routine (scheduled), taken-for-granted sex helps keep men from developing wandering eyes. Oh, how often men wish to be taken for granted sexually.

Yes, the point I’m trying to make is that Pop culture has masturbated us with shallow, loveless lust to the point that milliions worldwide view sex as PRIMARILY the right to stimulate the pleasure center of the brain a few times per week, as opposed to the combination of pleasure, love and procreation. What separates us from the rest of the animals on the planet is true romantic love. Any old animal can do it for pleasure and/or procreation.

Millions all over the world are failing to see the big picture of what pop culture has been promoting the last few decades: the more that people see sex as existing PRIMARILY for pleasure and SECONDARILY for true, romantic, love or procreation, the more this cheapens human existence, the value of human life, and religion, which is exactly what “progressives” want. Many “progressives” don’t believe in God, believe there’s no heaven or consequences, believe they might as well pleasure themselves as much as possible in this life since they don’t believe in afterlife. This puts a priority on physical pleasure of self, as opposed to others. Naturally, they see kids and religion as obstructions to affording more “stuff” for self gratification. It’s almost as if We The People are being masturbated by Pop Culture backwards into animals who live their lives by their basic instincts, no better or different than any other animal on the planet. Weak sheeple who live according to their basic instincts are easier to manipulate and control. They are less independent to think or believe in a cause greater than themselves or sacrifice short term pain for long term gain. It’s the exact opposite of independence, open mindedness, freedom, and free will. Some have even likened it to war against religion. Claims that we can control the climate makes us feel powerful and godlike instead of insignificant. Parenthood makes us feel significant, but some are not interested in that level of committment. They want high taxes on gas and population control to masturbate our egos into the godlike high of believing we can actually “save” the planet from climate change, which will happen naturally anyway. With less value on true, romantic love and the value of new human life and family values, pop culture media can promote more lewd instant gratification for the self. How many Catholics and others are being pulled in this direction and can’t / refuse to acknowledge it? Scary, isn’t it? We need a brand new form of pop culture media. The leaders of this one have been broken for a few decades.

 

[Vico]

We agree to disagree. Well, I agree, but you don’t seem to…

If you prefer not to agree to disagree, then I contend your interpretation is wrong, NFP does violate the natural act and its consequence. That works too.

I can neither agree nor disagree until I understand your position. Here is a summary of what I believe to be your position and my position which I believe is the Catholic position.

My understanding of your position on ABC and NFP is:

1. The purpose of marriage is to produce children.
2. NFP and ABC both violate the purpose of marriage, but in a different fashion.
   …a. ABC violates the conjugal act.
   …b. NFP modifies the natural sexual relationship.
3. No case for NFP over ABC.

The Catholic position is:

1. The primary purpose of marriage is the determined effort to perfect each other. (Casti Cannubii 24)
2. The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children. (St. Augustine)
3. The primary end of marriage is subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage.
4. NFP and ABC both violate the end of marriage, but in a different fashion.
   …a. ABC violates the nature of the conjugal act.
   …b. NFP modifies the natural sexual relationship.
5. Serious motive does not allow for violation of the nature of the conjugal act.
6. Serious motive may allow for violation of the end of marriage.
7. There may be a case for NFP over ABC.

 

[PassingThru]

Wow, this is very good! Did you see my response above? It might help explain a bit.

For you list below, I think that basically summarizes it. I do, however, sense some potential “traps” in your language. You are very by the book, and I am not sure this is intentional or not.

Not sure where you are heading with this whole purpose of marriage bit. I agree (roughly) with your Catholic definition as well. And your “The purpose of marriage is to produce children” you used for me is of course, wildly simplified. So, I would just summarize to say we view its purpose equally. If you are trying to somehow link NFP and ABC back to how and why we get married in the first place, well, I really don’t know where you are going with that.

Everything past “NFP and ABC both violate…” is basically accurate. You have added and changed a lot of the subtle language, and I really can’t tell where you are heading with this either. I have a feeling that is also intentional. But maybe not. For example, you added “motive” to the Catholic position, and thrown in some “naturals” and “end of marriage” bits as well. So, I think you are basically there, but, I will withhold my final verdict.

I can neither agree nor disagree until I understand your position. Here is a summary of what I believe to be your position and my position which I believe is the Catholic position.

My understanding of your position on ABC and NFP is:

1. The purpose of marriage is to produce children.
2. NFP and ABC both violate the purpose of marriage, but in a different fashion.
   …a. ABC violates the conjugal act.
   …b. NFP modifies the natural sexual relationship.
3. No case for NFP over ABC.

The Catholic position is:

1. The primary purpose of marriage is the determined effort to perfect each other. (Casti Cannubii 24)
2. The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children. (St. Augustine)
3. The primary end of marriage is subordinate to the primary purpose of marriage.
4. NFP and ABC both violate the end of marriage, but in a different fashion.
   …a. ABC violates the nature of the conjugal act.
   …b. NFP modifies the natural sexual relationship.
5. Serious motive does not allow for violation of the nature of the conjugal act.
6. Serious motive may allow for violation of the end of marriage.
7. There may be a case for NFP over ABC.

 

[Vico]

Wow, this is very good! Did you see my response above? It might help explain a bit.

For you list below, I think that basically summarizes it. I do, however, sense some potential “traps” in your language. You are very by the book, and I am not sure this is intentional or not.

Not sure where you are heading with this whole purpose of marriage bit. I agree (roughly) with your Catholic definition as well. And your “The purpose of marriage is to produce children” you used for me is of course, wildly simplified. So, I would just summarize to say we view its purpose equally. If you are trying to somehow link NFP and ABC back to how and why we get married in the first place, well, I really don’t know where you are going with that.

Everything past “NFP and ABC both violate…” is basically accurate. You have added and changed a lot of the subtle language, and I really can’t tell where you are heading with this either. I have a feeling that is also intentional. But maybe not. For example, you added “motive” to the Catholic position, and thrown in some “naturals” and “end of marriage” bits as well. So, I think you are basically there, but, I will withhold my final verdict.

Yes, I saw what you said to una fides and extracted your position from that, and used “behavior” from an earlier post or ours. You expressed the inability of anybody to articulate the idea correctly and we have been grappling with “natural act” so the term “sexual behavior” is covers the behavior of abstinance during likely fertile times.

I am by the book, because I do not want to deviate from the magisterium.

You said: “For example, you added “motive” to the Catholic position, and thrown in some “naturals” and “end of marriage” bits as well.”

I hope using “nature of the conjugal act” did not add more confusion. I think I was going to make both version the same and missed something, so now I have revised it below. I have used motive throughout my statements as you can see if you read back. I took “end of mariage” from St. Augustine, but I am changing it to “restricted purpose”. I can provide the quote if you are interested. It is the restricted sense of the purpose of marriage. The full sense of the purpose of marriage was explained by Pope Pius XI in Casti Canubii item 24. Pope Pius XI is difficult reading so I never quoted him to you directly before. You can read it here.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

It is important to recognize the broad purpose of marriage which has presedence over the restricted purpose of marriage. There is a good of the couple being together even without sexual activity or children. This can be seen in couples that, having validly married, have some tragedy occur preventing them from any sexual activity and from conceiving a family. Some of these people may be able to adopt.

You said we had the same purpose, but then the wording of the last portion for your position is now uncertain to me. So based upon your remarks I have your position as below, where I eliminated “end” and added modifers to clarify:

1. The primary broad purpose of marriage is the determined effort to perfect each other. (Casti Cannubii 24)
2. The primary restricted purpose of marriage is the procreation and the education of children. (St. Augustine)
3. The primary restricted purpose of marriage is subordinate to the primary broad purpose of marriage.
4. NFP and ABC both violate the ______ purpose of marriage, but in a different fashion.
   …a. ABC violates the conjugal act.
   …b. NFP modifies the natural sexual relationship.
5. No case for NFP over ABC.

So what should be in _______ above, restricted purpose, broad purpose?

Revised Catholic position is:

1. The primary broad purpose of marriage is the determined effort to perfect each other. (Casti Cannubii 24)
2. The primary restricted purpose of marriage is the procreation and the education of children. (St. Augustine)
3. The primary restricted purpose of marriage is subordinate to the primary broad purpose of marriage.
4. NFP and ABC both violate the restricted purpose of marriage, but in a different fashion.
   …a. ABC violates the conjugal act.
   …b. NFP modifies the natural sexual relationship.
5. Serious motive does not allow for violation of the conjugal act.
6. Serious motive may allow for violation of the restricted purpose of marriage.
7. There may be a case for NFP over ABC.

 

[Learning123]

Quoting PassingThru’s reponse to Tracy Spenst:
“The Catholic Church teaches that for someone to refuse to be open to children without serious reason is a sin. AgreeThe method, in this instance, is a sidepoint. AgreeNFP is for those couples who have serious reason to avoid pregnancy. It is not to be used selfishly. Agree Just because there are couples who do so says nothing about the method itself. Getting closer And it doesn’t change the fact that using ABC is a sin, no matter what the circumstances.Actually, mostly agree.”

Quoting PassingThru’s response to una fides:
Also if you believe ABC to be morally justifiable can you please state your reasons why. Again, I don’t know why you keep going to this. I think it is just ingrained that that is where I am heading. It is not. I have said a dozen times that BOTH violate the principal, as defined here in many different ways. I have yet to see how NFP does not violate this principal. The basics of what I get are “the act is unchanged, ergo, its good”. I feel that ignores the overriding aspect of NFP and makes it sound like a checklist."

The first quote I found confusing. I thought you were opposed to ABC, so saying “mostly” in the first quote was confusing to me and maybe to others too, opening the door to including morality/immorality of ABC to come into the conversation again.

As to a “checklist” I have sometimes felt like that was what you were looking for through this conversation. That you felt NFP is always immoral and were looking to see if someone could provide something specific or concrete enough that you could say “under checklist A, NFP isn’t moral” and “under checklist B, NFP is moral”. I certainly may have misunderstood, but I got the sense that you felt having “grave reason” or “motive” for delaying/avoiding conception was too subjective leaving couples open to abusing NFP. … Something more objective would make it even more of a checklist. I can’t imagine that you would think God would judge someone as immoral for avoiding conception even if a conception would medically put their life in danger. Complete abstinence would only further “alter the natural sex life of the couple”(paraphrase?), which seemed to be what you were wanting to look at rather than the individual instances.
Have I totally misunderstood? I haven’t been on the forum enough lately to pariticipate regularly, but have been reading the email updates when I could. I realize this may be too far beyond where you wish to be in the discussion to respond.

As to comments throughout that the converation is as if with a dictionary… I wish I could remember who made the statement, but I read or heard recently a discussion on why is it important to memorize our catechesis verbatum. The reason given was that often changing just one word can change the meaning of the statement as a whole. I suppose too, legal or textbook sounding answers may not sound simple but may help limit the possible meaning to that which was intended. Does that make sense.