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

[PassingThru]

Interesting discussion!

Here is my take, poke holes as you see fit. It seems like a lot of assumptions are going into who or what someone represents. I will try to narrow the focus a bit and see what people feel. Bear with me…

Lets take an example: Two couples, both got married, had 2 kids in the first 5 or so years. Basic family unit for U.S. couples. Important thing here is they are by all accounts the same couple. This is important for the sake of a rational discussion.

Now, they both have no desire for more children. I am not going to speculate as to why, but for whatever reason, they are absolutely done. Whatever reason you want to have for this is fine, but it will be the same reason for both.

Now, the only difference between the 2 couples, is one uses NFP, the other uses ABC. Again, that is the ONLY difference. Both couples are rigorous in their chosen method, and it can be reasonably assumed they will be successful.

Now, from my understanding, the 2 issues are: 1) Open to life and 2) Unitive purpose. So first, Open to Life:

I would argue that both couples are equally open to life. Assuming if they did have an “oops” baby, they would raise and love it just as their 2 earlier kids. The only way I see to say one is more ‘open’ to life is if you can somehow peer into the couple and figure out who is really more ‘open’ and who is not. In reality, I think either couple could be more ‘open’ than the other. How one achieves the goal of NOT getting pregnant has not been shown to me to have any insight into how they will view an unwanted pregnancy. Now, it is very important to note that it is reasonable to assume huge numbers of people using ABC that have no desire whatsoever to have a child. Any of the millions heading to a bar for a one night fling could fall into that category. HOWEVER, that does not mean that anyone on ABC falls into that category. It is not an exclusive relationship (mathematically) and I think that is one that trips people up sometimes. In summary: I have not in any way been shown or convinced that an otherwise equal couple is less ‘open’ to children based on how they avoid pregnancy.

Second would be Unitive Purpose. Again, using the above scenario, I have not seen anything that points to one being more “unitive” than the other. I think there are two ways to look at the question. One is practical (or psychological) and the other is theological. On the practical side, I see no evidence pointing to one over the other. This is the side that is open for discussion. If the argument is made from the theological side, well, not much to discuss there. If your point is somewhere along the lines of “God said it is wrong…” or the “The Church teaches…” that kind of ends the discussion. Not that I have any issue with that position, but for the sake of a discussion, not much can be said in dispute of what you believe.

Back to the practical defense of the Unitive point. I see nothing that can even surmise as to which method is more unitive. Again, millions of examples of people using ABC while living a totally unacceptable lifestyle, granted. But that fact does NOT lead to ABC being detrimental on its own. Not an exclusive relationship.

So, in this type of a scenario, what are the thoughts on demonstrating how one is more open to life or unitive than the other?

Sorry for the long post…

M

 

[Vico]

PassingThru, you said:

“I have not seen anything that points to one being more “unitive” than the other.” and “I have not in any way been shown or convinced that an otherwise equal couple is less ‘open’ to children based on how they avoid pregnancy.”

Procreative and unitive are not the only issues to consider, there is also (a) respect for God as the master of creation, shown by not impeding the order of generation from completing its own natural processes, and (b) the intention and morality of the natural family planning.

I. Abstaining from the marital act during fertile periods does not obstruct the life-giving potential of any marital act because there is no marital act occuring during the fertile periods. Artificial birth control does obstruct the life-giving potential during the fertile periods. (Humanae Vitae, item 16)

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

II. Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, October 29, 1951 states that there must be right intention and unquestionable morality of the motives when using natural family planning:

1. based on sufficient and reliable moral grounds
2. do not offend against the nature of the act
3. willing to accept and bring up the child that is born

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

III. Married couples do have the right to naturally space births per the teaching of the Catholic Church: “Spouses have the inalienable right to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born … in accordance with the objective moral order which excludes recourse to contraception, sterilization, and abortion,” (Charter of the Rights of the Family article 3).

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_19831022_family-rights_en.html

Also, previously given in this thread, were reasons for total abstinance, other than spacing births or limiting the number of children. These are times when conjugal relations would be uncharitable.

 

[PassingThru]

PassingThru, you said:

“I have not seen anything that points to one being more “unitive” than the other.” and “I have not in any way been shown or convinced that an otherwise equal couple is less ‘open’ to children based on how they avoid pregnancy.”

Procreative and unitive are not the only issues to consider, there is also (a) respect for God as the master of creation, shown by not impeding the order of generation from completing its own natural processes, and (b) the intention and morality of the natural family planning.

OK

I. Abstaining from the marital act during fertile periods does not obstruct the life-giving potential of any marital act because there is no marital act occuring during the fertile periods. Artificial birth control does obstruct the life-giving potential during the fertile periods. (Humanae Vitae, item 16)

No disagreement, that is a bit of a definition. Again, both couples want nothing to do with a child. Both succeed.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

II. Pope Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives, October 29, 1951 states that there must be right intention and unquestionable morality of the motives when using natural family planning:

1. based on sufficient and reliable moral grounds** No distinguishing basis here**
2. do not offend against the nature of the act** Open to discussion**
3. willing to accept and bring up the child that is born** Again, nothing to distinguish NFP from ABC**

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

III. Married couples do have the right to naturally space births per the teaching of the Catholic Church: “Spouses have the inalienable right to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born … in accordance with the objective moral order which excludes recourse to contraception, sterilization, and abortion,” (Charter of the Rights of the Family article 3). ** OK **

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_19831022_family-rights_en.html

Also, previously given in this thread, were reasons for total abstinance, other than spacing births or limiting the number of children. These are times when conjugal relations would be uncharitable.

Maybe I wasn’t clear with my question. I have no doubt there are piles of documentation that say ABC is bad. No argument there. But nothing you brought up says a single thing about why it is bad. Saying things like “ABC detracts from the Unitive aspect” is all well and good, but it does nothing to prove a point.

I think it is like this: It is not that I disagree with the teachings on NFP. Its the logic. The main points of procreation and unitive purpose (paraphrasing) are arguments that dont make sense to me. Its like saying: “High taxes are bad”. I agree with that statement. “They are bad because they increase beach erosion” OK, now I still agree high taxes are bad, but I dont follow your reasoning. Crude example, but it gets the point across. I still dont see how ABC causes less openness to children or less unitive sex. You can certainly have those characteristics, they go well together, but I haven’t seen how one derives the other.

 

[Vico]

… I still dont see how ABC causes less openness to children or less unitive sex. You can certainly have those characteristics, they go well together, but I haven’t seen how one derives the other.

Note: ABC = artificial birth control.

But the degree of unitiveness or openness to children is not the basis of objection to artificial birth control that was given. Yet one can be given, but first, the reason given:

Artificial birth control is sinful because it obstruct the life-giving potential during the fertile periods, that is, it impeds the order of generation from completing its own natural processes, which shows disrespect for God as the master of creation.

Not Unitive

Artificial birth control methods prevent the conjugal act from being natural by the very fact that they are artificial. Stopping ovulation, thickening mucus near the cervix, modifying the uterine lining, decreasing the number of periods to once per three months, and condoms are recommended part of the time. This means that a total giving is not being achieved by the spouses, and may also be physically harmful and therefore uncharitible. Uncharitible is not unitive.

Killing

There are also additional objections in that some forms of artificial birth control lead to unknown abortions (e.g., fertilization takes place and then the embryo cannot attach).

 

[PassingThru]

Note: ABC = artificial birth control.

OK

But the degree of unitiveness or openness to children is not the basis of objection to artificial birth control that was given. Not quite following you, but OKYet one can be given, but first, the reason given:

Artificial birth control is sinful because it obstruct the life-giving potential during the fertile periods, that is, it impeds the order of generation from completing its own natural processes, which shows disrespect for God as the master of creation.

OK, Ill run with this. For the sake of this discussion, we have one couple using NFP to successfully contracept, and one using ABC. One obstructs or impedes fertilization with timing, the other with latex (for example). Both are used to never have sperm or egg meet for, lets say, 25 years. Your contention is that the latex is disrespectful, but using nature with thermometers, charts, books, classes, etc. is not? Again I ask, WHY? Both couples have sex thousands of times. No kids.

Not Unitive

Artificial birth control methods prevent the conjugal act from being natural by the very fact that they are artificial. This statement means nothing? ** Stopping ovulation, thickening mucus near the cervix, modifying the uterine lining, decreasing the number of periods to once per three months, and condoms are recommended part of the time. ** ??? All speculation, and not a fair point. ex. Condoms or vasectomy have NONE of the things you mention This means that a total giving is not being achieved by the spousesAgain, HOW? Explain how this works. What is not being given, and, compare it to a couple using NFP so well there is no chance they will get pregnant, and the man and woman KNOW they will not get pregant. HOW is it different?, and may also be physically harmful and therefore uncharitible. Uncharitible is not unitive. ** Again, speculation that I have yet to hear any backing on.**

Killing

There are also additional objections in that some forms of artificial birth control lead to unknown abortions (e.g., fertilization takes place and then the embryo cannot attach).** Agree. So don’t use the pill. This is a specific issue with one form of ABC, not a general defense.**

Look, I know it sounds like I am just being difficult. I am not trying to be. I don’t think ABC is good. I actually think NFP is a great system that should get more exposure outside the Church. Saying it is more open to life, or unitive, doesn’t make it so. I think the PEOPLE involved determine how open to life or unitive sex is, NOT how they contracept. Neither is better, they are just tools we use to not get pregnant. If you want to assert that one is somehow different, how it is different has to be demonstrated.

 

[una_fides]

Look, I know it sounds like I am just being difficult. I am not trying to be. I don’t think ABC is good. I actually think NFP is a great system that should get more exposure outside the Church. Saying it is more open to life, or unitive, doesn’t make it so. I think the PEOPLE involved determine how open to life or unitive sex is, NOT how they contracept. Neither is better, they are just tools we use to not get pregnant. If you want to assert that one is somehow different, how it is different has to be demonstrated.

Here is the key issue: the nature of the act itself. One involves abstinence during fertile periods. There is nothing sinful about not having sex. Abstinence is actually in the Bible and recommended by St. Paul as spiritually beneficial. The other involves altering the actual marital act itself. Couples engage in the marital act during fertile periods but the act itself is rendered unable to produce children during those times because an artificial means has been introduced, which thereby goes against the natural unaltered process of the body. The sin and difference lies in the altering of the body in order to remove during naturally fertile times the possibility of conception. It does not rest solely on the intention to not have children, otherwise NFP would also be wrong or there would be no difference. You must focus on the difference of the two: one is abstinence during fertile times (not sinful); the other is sex during fertile times with an artificially altered marital act.

 

[Vico]

…Saying it is more open to life, or unitive, doesn’t make it so. I think the PEOPLE involved determine how open to life or unitive sex is, NOT how they contracept. Neither is better, they are just tools we use to not get pregnant. If you want to assert that one is somehow different, how it is different has to be demonstrated.

The degree of unitiveness or openness to children is not the basis of objection to artificial birth control that is at issue, rather it is the issue of acknowledging that God is the master of the sources of life.

Una fides is correct, the difference is the nature of the act itself.

In your last post you stated that the couples were equal on: “1. based on sufficient and reliable moral grounds,” and “3. willing to accept and bring up the child that is born”. That leaves the second “2. do not offend against the nature of the act”. Using artificial means we attempt to be masters of the sources of life which only God is the master of; when we use artificial means (e.g., barriers, chemicals, devices, sterilization, and abortion), we modify the natural processes. (Some of these practices also go against unitive or procreative, but that is not a general difference between natural and artificial.)

 

[una_fides]

OK, Ill run with this. For the sake of this discussion, we have one couple using NFP to successfully contracept, and one using ABC. One obstructs or impedes fertilization with timing, the other with latex (for example). Both are used to never have sperm or egg meet for, lets say, 25 years. Your contention is that the latex is disrespectful, but using nature with thermometers, charts, books, classes, etc. is not? Again I ask, WHY? Both couples have sex thousands of times. No kids.

The difference is that one has sex naturally during infertile times, and there is nothing wrong with having normal, natural, unaltered sex during these times in and of itself; whereas, the other has sex during fertile times unnaturally by altering the sexual act and rendering it incapable of producing children during a time that God naturally designed the woman to be capable of producing children. Do you see the difference?

 

[PassingThru]

The difference is that one has sex naturally during infertile times, and there is nothing wrong with having normal, natural, unaltered sex during these times in and of itself; whereas, the other has sex during fertile times unnaturally by altering the sexual act and rendering it incapable of producing children during a time that God naturally designed the woman to be capable of producing children. Do you see the difference?

Yes, I do see the difference. To me, the above is mostly a definition of both methods. I guess I see using terms like “unaltered” and “natural” as defending a position that I disagree with. I don’t see a couple having sex over decades, and never having sex during fertility as “unaltered” or “natural” in any way. I am not saying it is WORSE, but it is, in my eyes, both altered and unnatural. Its a “forest through the trees” issue for me. The Church want sex to be procreative and unitive. I still fail to see how NFP (vice ABC) either adds or detracts from these principals. I WILL agree to a more theological defense, to say that any artificial contraception is a moral wrong. I still will not agree to the line of defense around any procreative or unitive principal, as I have yet to hear how it is not the people that determine these forces, instead of the contraceptive method.

 

[una_fides]

Yes, I do see the difference. To me, the above is mostly a definition of both methods. I guess I see using terms like “unaltered” and “natural” as defending a position that I disagree with. I don’t see a couple having sex over decades, and never having sex during fertility as “unaltered” or “natural” in any way. I am not saying it is WORSE, but it is, in my eyes, both altered and unnatural. Its a “forest through the trees” issue for me. The Church want sex to be procreative and unitive. I still fail to see how NFP (vice ABC) either adds or detracts from these principals. I WILL agree to a more theological defense, to say that any artificial contraception is a moral wrong. I still will not agree to the line of defense around any procreative or unitive principal, as I have yet to hear how it is not the people that determine these forces, instead of the contraceptive method.

I think you are getting hung up by taking steps back and looking at the result rather than by focusing on the individual act itself. Each individual act of sex within marriage, when using NFP, is unaltered. Abstinence is not “altered” or “unnatural” as I am being abstinent right now, priests and single persons are also to be abstinent. Are you saying it is unnatural and altered for someone to deny their impulses and refuse to have sex? Is fasting an “unnatural” and “altered” act? You are also referring to something as an act when it is actually the lack thereof. Fasting is the denying to eat and abstinence is the denying to have sex. There is not an act taking place but a denying one’s self of an act. It is necessary to gain mastery over one’s flesh and self control. So again, I think when you zoom in on the morality of the acts themselves rather than looking at the broad overall result you will see that NFP is not intrinsically evil as it is merely observing and charting the cycles of the body and using those cycles that God has given in order to either conceive children or for serious reasons to delay having children.

 

[PassingThru]

The degree of unitiveness or openness to children is not the basis of objection to artificial birth control that is at issue, rather it is the issue of acknowledging that God is the master of the sources of life.

Una fides is correct, the difference is the nature of the act itself.

In your last post you stated that the couples were equal on: “1. based on sufficient and reliable moral grounds,” and “3. willing to accept and bring up the child that is born”. That leaves the second “2. do not offend against the nature of the act”. Using artificial means we attempt to be masters of the sources of life which only God is the master of; when we use artificial means (e.g., barriers, chemicals, devices, sterilization, and abortion), we modify the natural processes. (Some of these practices also go against unitive or procreative, but that is not a general difference between natural and artificial.)

So, to stick with our agreed point of contention, ie The Nature Of The Act. You are right, in as much as you limit the time frame to sexual intercourse. I would also contend that if you push that time frame open a bit, it is not the individual act that is altered, but the entire sexual cycle. I could just as easily make the argument that having sex during a womans fertile point is the MOST natural time to have sex. After all, it is when women WANT to have sex the most, which is quite natural. Church teaching is that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sex (technically the entire point of it) for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts, period. Well, I disagree. I would contend that is also altering the sexual act, rendering it unnatural. Am I right? Maybe so. But I know I can not stand up and say one is definitely NOT an alteration while one is. They are different, to be sure. But if you narrow your view to only allow one predetermined definition in, then you can rationalize any view. (For NFP or ABC)

 

[una_fides]

So, to stick with our agreed point of contention, ie The Nature Of The Act. You are right, in as much as you limit the time frame to sexual intercourse. I would also contend that if you push that time frame open a bit, it is not the individual act that is altered, but the entire sexual cycle. I could just as easily make the argument that having sex during a womans fertile point is the MOST natural time to have sex. After all, it is when women WANT to have sex the most, which is quite natural. Church teaching is that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sex (technically the entire point of it) for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts, period. Well, I disagree. I would contend that is also altering the sexual act, rendering it unnatural. Am I right? Maybe so. But I know I can not stand up and say one is definitely NOT an alteration while one is. They are different, to be sure. But if you narrow your view to only allow one predetermined definition in, then you can rationalize any view. (For NFP or ABC)

Did you get a chance to read through my last couple of posts? When someone abstains during fertile periods what “act” is “altered”? There is no act. You can argue it’s unnatural to abstain from sex, but that argument fails for several reasons that I pointed out above. Would you also conclude that it’s unnatural for a single person or a priest to abstain from sex?

 

[PassingThru]

I think you are getting hung up by taking steps back and looking at the result rather than by focusing on the individual act itself. Each individual act of sex within marriage, when using NFP, is unaltered.** If only looking for and accepting some physical difference at that moment as your definition, yes. ** Abstinence is not “altered” or “unnatural” as I am being abstinent right now, priests and single persons are also to be abstinent. Are you saying it is unnatural and altered for someone to deny their impulses and refuse to have sex?**Yes, that is what I am saying. Again, using what I think is an artificial way to look at each individual instance and ignoring all other factors, you are right. ** Is fasting an “unnatural” and “altered” act? ** It can be, sure. Do you not agree? You are also referring to something as an act when it is actually the lack thereof. ** That point is out of context. Sitting on a bench is acceptable. Sitting while a child is about to be hit by a car is likely a problem. My point is doing something or the act of NOT doing something is not really the defining characteristic to me. It is WHY that is importantFasting is the denying to eat and abstinence is the denying to have sex. ** Again, NFP is NOT one isolated instance. It is a system with specific goals. **There is not an act taking place but a denying one’s self of an act. It is necessary to gain mastery over one’s flesh and self control. ** True, but that is not the exclusive domain of NFP. **So again, I think when you zoom in on the morality of the acts themselves rather than looking at the broad overall result ** Look at just one instance of sex but ignore all other circumstance? That sounds a bit counter intuitive. Teachings usually DO have larger ramifications in mind. **you will see that NFP is not intrinsically evil ** never said it was! I agree! **as it is merely observing and charting the cycles of the body and using those cycles that God has given in order to either conceive children or for serious reasons to delay having children. serious reasons part is not needed. Not exclusive to NFP, and seems to always be thrown in as if it is somehow linked.

 

[PassingThru]

Did you get a chance to read through my last couple of posts? When someone abstains during fertile periods what “act” is “altered”? As I said above, if you only look through your restricted view, that is true. I could just as easily point out that using your restricted view, a man that had a vasectomy has not altered anything during the ‘act’ as well. I don’t actually believe in that argument, but it works using your blinders, so to speak. There is no act. You can argue it’s unnatural to abstain from sexYes, I can make that argument. It depends on how and why. I am sure you agree., but that argument fails for several reasons that I pointed out above. Would you also conclude that it’s unnatural for a single person or a priest to abstain from sex?** Generally, no, I would not. But then again, that is totally outside our topic of discussion and irrelevant.**

If your point is: each act of having or not having sex using NFP is physically unaltered, therefor permissable, and ignore all other factors involved, I can not argue that point and it is basically bulletproof. I think A LOT more goes into it. If you disagree that there is, in fact, more to it, then we, as they say, are at an impasse!

 

[una_fides]

When someone abstains during fertile periods what “act” is “altered”? As I said above, if you only look through your restricted view, that is true. I could just as easily point out that using your restricted view, a man that had a vasectomy has not altered anything during the ‘act’ as well. I don’t actually believe in that argument, but it works using your blinders, so to speak. There is no act. You can argue it’s unnatural to abstain from sexYes, I can make that argument. It depends on how and why. I am sure you agree.

When one has a vasectomy he has already altered the act. Yes, seemingly normal intercourse may take place, but the act itself is rendered sterile during fertile periods through an artificial means. Again the issue is whether one can artificially alter the marital act so as to avoid conception. You have not provided any proof that abstaining from sex during fertile periods artificially alters the marital act.

One can also abstain from sex all the time. That too does not artificially alter the marital act since one is free to abstain as long as with just intentions. To have the intention to avoid conception is not evil if one has serious reason to do so. However, to artificially alter the natural marital act itself to avoid conception cannot be justified even if one has a serious reason to do so because it is intrinsically evil, for man does not have a right to tinker with God’s design for conception.

God designed the a woman’s body to have a cycle and taking advantage of that natural God-created cycle to conceive or deffer conception for a serious reason is not evil. To artificially alter God’s design for the marital act is evil.

If at this point you aren’t completely convinced, stew over it and pray, and I will do the same with what you’ve written, and we’ll see if we can make any further progress.

 

[Vico]

So, to stick with our agreed point of contention, ie The Nature Of The Act. You are right, in as much as you limit the time frame to sexual intercourse. I would also contend that if you push that time frame open a bit, it is not the individual act that is altered, but the entire sexual cycle. I could just as easily make the argument that having sex during a womans fertile point is the MOST natural time to have sex. After all, it is when women WANT to have sex the most, which is quite natural. Church teaching is that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sex (technically the entire point of it) for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts, period. Well, I disagree. I would contend that is also altering the sexual act, rendering it unnatural. Am I right? Maybe so. But I know I can not stand up and say one is definitely NOT an alteration while one is. They are different, to be sure. But if you narrow your view to only allow one predetermined definition in, then you can rationalize any view. (For NFP or ABC)

Above you said “Church teaching is that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sex (technically the entire point of it) for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts, period.”

You are refering to sexual behavior rather than a specific act here. The Church does not teach that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sexual behavior for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts. You are correct that natural family planning is altering natural reproduction when considered over a period of time, but it is altered behavior. In the previous encyclical I references Pope Pius XII wrote:

“Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.”

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

However, we accepted the assumption that the use of artificial vs natural methods were the only differences between the hypothetical couples, and that they were equal on:

“1. based on sufficient and reliable moral grounds,” and
“3. willing to accept and bring up the child that is born”.

So we must consider only that they “2. do not offend against the nature of the act”. Abstinance does not offend against the nature of the act, whereas artifical birth control does.

 

[Tracy_Spenst]

Passing Thru,

I’m going to throw in another thought on this.

Now, I’m guessing you’re a man, so maybe this won’t have occurred to you. As a woman, there is a HUGE difference between NFP and ABC. From a practical point of view, there is no type of ABC that does not pose serious health risks.

The Pill–a confirmed link between that and breast cancer has now been established by a Federal study (look up Nat’l Catholic Register’s article on it). It is also works as an abortive device approx. 20-30% of the time. And, yes, women still get pregnant on the Pill.

Tubal ligation–Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, huge increase in probability for hysterectomy, women also report feeling a loss of their womanhood. And women still can get pregnant. A doctor friend of ours said the maddest woman he ever had in the ER was a woman who’d had a tubal five years before. She came in due to vomiting, etc. only to find out she was pregnant–with twins.

Condom–danger of latex issues and possibility of pregnancy. For a woman who would be in life-threatening danger by getting pregnant, what kind of husband takes that kind of chance?

Vasectomy–As a wife, I refused to even consider this option when my husband suggested it. My whole gut said, “No” and we weren’t even Catholic at the time. And I have to wonder at the huge increase in prostate cancer we now see–think there might be a link there?

Now, NFP is a practice that both husband and wife must participate in. Although there are couples who use NFP with an ABC mentality, that’s not the norm. Most of the time there is discussion between them about abstaining. It is a mutual decision.

For me, as a woman, switching to NFP made a big difference. My body is now treasured for the wonder of creation that it is. We no longer tinker with it like it was a car. My husband loves me enough to abstain because of my high risk status with pregnancy.

What about it being “unnatural” to abstain when a woman is fertile and, therefore, “in the mood?” Well, I have plenty of urges from my flesh that I suppress because they aren’t healthy. I have thoughts I immediately reject because they’re sinful. So what if I suppress my “mood” because this is not the time to seek pregnancy? And, btw, how often do women participate without being “in the mood” because their husbands’ are? Is that unnatural or an act of love?

The theological points have already been explained to you, so I won’t go into those again. But I do think you will have to realize that there has been a lot of thought, discussion and prayer on the part of the popes and bishops of the Catholic Church about this over the course of the last 2000 years. Certainly a lot more since 1930 when the Church of England first lifted it’s ban on ABC for married couples in desperate circumstances. What Protestant denomination can say the same? There are some–and they are largely dismissed by other Protestants because they don’t even accept the use of NFP. After all, you can find the use of NFP in Scripture, but you’ll not find a shred of support for ABC of any kind.

~Tracy

 

[PassingThru]

Thanks Tracy,

Trust me, I have no beef whatsoever with your opinions. This shows how happy you are to have NFP in your life, which is great. You will notice, I am not against NFP in any way, shape or form.

There are, however, lots of issues around ABC, but I have yet to figure out how these arguments apply as witnessed in previous postings. About the only thing I disagree with in your statements about NFP, is that couples using NFP dont have a “contraceptive” mentality. I will leave your thoughts on this to yourself, but a common defense made of NFP is that they somehow feel different about its effects vs ABC, and this is unfounded. You may feel different about its uses, which is wonderful. But you have no insight into how others feel, and making broad accusations is not defensible or charitable.

Bottom line, I am happy you find joy in NFP. None of this helps explain any of the previous issues.

 

[PassingThru]

When one has a vasectomy he has already altered the act. Yes, seemingly normal intercourse may take place, but the act itself is rendered sterile during fertile periods through an artificial means. Again the issue is whether one can artificially alter the marital act so as to avoid conception. You have not provided any proof that abstaining from sex during fertile periods artificially alters the marital act.

One can also abstain from sex all the time. That too does not artificially alter the marital act since one is free to abstain as long as with just intentions. To have the intention to avoid conception is not evil if one has serious reason to do so. However, to artificially alter the natural marital act itself to avoid conception cannot be justified even if one has a serious reason to do so because it is intrinsically evil, for man does not have a right to tinker with God’s design for conception.

God designed the a woman’s body to have a cycle and taking advantage of that natural God-created cycle to conceive or deffer conception for a serious reason is not evil. To artificially alter God’s design for the marital act is evil.

If at this point you aren’t completely convinced, stew over it and pray, and I will do the same with what you’ve written, and we’ll see if we can make any further progress.

I dont think we can communicate on this issue which is fine. I will try one more time.

You keep repeating “alter the marital act” over and over. I AGREE. ABC, IN SOME WAY SHAPE OR FORM, PHYSICALLY ALTERS SOME ASPECT OF A MAN, WOMAN, OR BOTH. This is the definition of ABC. I get it. You and I both agree, that this can be used to say things like, alter, un-natural, gods design, etc.

Now quid pro quo. You have avoided with great completeness any attempts to answer to the HOWs and WHYs that I have brought up. Please answer these direct questions as best you can:
NFP is more than a series of individual choices to abstain. Y/N?
Successful, long term practice of NFP in some way alters/changes sex between a couple. Y/N?
Abstinence is not intrinsically good. It can be used improperly. Y/N?

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.

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!

 

[PassingThru]

Above you said “Church teaching is that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sex (technically the entire point of it) for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts, period.”

You are refering to sexual behavior rather than a specific act here. The Church does not teach that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sexual behavior for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts. You are correct that natural family planning is altering natural reproduction when considered over a period of time, but it is altered behavior. In the previous encyclical I references Pope Pius XII wrote:

“Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.”

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

However, we accepted the assumption that the use of artificial vs natural methods were the only differences between the hypothetical couples, and that they were equal on:

“1. based on sufficient and reliable moral grounds,” and
“3. willing to accept and bring up the child that is born”.

So we must consider only that they “2. do not offend against the nature of the act”. Abstinance does not offend against the nature of the act, whereas artifical birth control does.

Trying my best, thanks for you response Vico.

So what you are saying, is that NFP does alter this natural aspect of reproduction, but you are putting it in the “behavior” bucket, so it does not apply? I guess you can do that, but that doesn’t do much to answer the question. This is the same point I am trying to make to Una Fides. If all that is needed is to “fulfill” this requirement is to not use ABC, well, then, that is the end of the discussion. To me, there are OTHER things one can do to “offend the nature of the act”. If you will write off all possible ways to commit this offense outside of ABC, we have nothing further to discuss. To me, that is plugging your ears and going “la-la-la-la”.

I dont mean for that to sound as rude as it does. It just doesn’t seem like anyone wants to have discussion on merits, and just reverts to “well, this is Truth”. Again, I am not saying one is good or bad, better or worse.