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

[Vico]

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.

You said: “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?”

It does apply to the overall issue, and that is why I gave the quote from Pope Pius XII. But it is not a difference between natural and artificial birth control. In responding, I’ve keep to your scenario. If we are done with that, I can try to list all the factors. But I think it is not fair of you to set the requirements for the discussion and then not hold to them as I am doing. (Please don’t read this as an angry remark.) I appreciate the difficulty of this issue to describe. Can I ask if you read the Papal Encyclical that I referenced (Pope Pius XII)? papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

I am listing two distinct components to conjugal relations (as does Pope Pius XII): right and use. Right is granting the right to each other, use is exercising the right.

1. Valid marriage: exclusive, perpetual, and open to children, granting conjugal rights to each other, marital right claimable only when not uncharitible or sinful, Church approved marriage with no impediments, sterility acceptable, pre-existing and perpetual inability to consummate invalidates marriage *
2. Conjugal relations - use: respectful and dignified, natural act only
3. Conjugal relations - non-use: abstinance is permissible when mutual and for a time and with sufficient and reliable moral grounds **

---

• It is possible for a marriage to be ratified but never consummated. In that case is it possible for it to be declared null.
  ** sufficient and reliable moral grounds: willingness of both parties, ability to practice continence, unselfish reason (social, eugenic, economic, or medical). Pope Pius XII:
  “Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”

 

[PaulinVA]

Passing thru said, in red: 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.

**So, this is it, then. It is natural to follow your impulses and unnatural and artificial to not follow your impulses?

Well, if that’s the case, my life is pretty much unnatural and artifical. This morning when the alarm rang, I really wanted to turn over and go to sleep. That was my impulse, but I denied it. I then drove to work. I had this impulse to honk and curse at the guy in the parking garage taking five minutes to back his huge SUV into a space, but I denied it and kept silent.

Our lives are full of instances where we deny our base impulses and do something else. In fact, having bad “impulse control” is a problem for some kids.

Your argument that people who practice NFP are stifling impulses and that is bad does not hold water. You deny impulses all of the time. After one gets to a certain age, you are expected to develop impulse control and not do everything that pops into your mind. I would argue that impulse control, in a civilized society, is what is natural.

 

[Tracy_Spenst]

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.

So, how does this differ from your own assumption that couples using NFP are using it with a contraceptive mentality? You also are making an assumption. You are judging the thoughts of couples based on their action of using NFP. Upon what basis are you saying they have a contraceptive mentality? Just because they have determined that at this time that having another child is more than they can handle?

If you’re approaching this from the perspective that since both couples decide they only want two children so each uses a method to avoid that, I believe you’re asking why the couple using NFP is correct while the other is not.

This is not a question of method, it’s a question of motivation and willingness to obey the commands of God given through His Church (which, as a Lutheran, you don’t accept, so you’re trying to argue with something you have not background or belief in).

The Catholic Church teaches that for someone to refuse to be open to children without serious reason is a sin. The method, in this instance, is a sidepoint. NFP is for those couples who have serious reason to avoid pregnancy. It is not to be used selfishly. Just because there are couples who do so says nothing about the method itself. And it doesn’t change the fact that using ABC is a sin, no matter what the circumstances.

~Tracy

 

[PassingThru]

Passing thru said, in red: 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.

**So, this is it, then. It is natural to follow your impulses and unnatural and artificial to not follow your impulses?

Well, if that’s the case, my life is pretty much unnatural and artifical. This morning when the alarm rang, I really wanted to turn over and go to sleep. That was my impulse, but I denied it. I then drove to work. I had this impulse to honk and curse at the guy in the parking garage taking five minutes to back his huge SUV into a space, but I denied it and kept silent.

Our lives are full of instances where we deny our base impulses and do something else. In fact, having bad “impulse control” is a problem for some kids.

Your argument that people who practice NFP are stifling impulses and that is bad does not hold water. You deny impulses all of the time. After one gets to a certain age, you are expected to develop impulse control and not do everything that pops into your mind. I would argue that impulse control, in a civilized society, is what is natural.

Paulin, you are absolutely right. I didn’t bother in my response to edit it to more appropriately reflect my thoughts. I DO NOT believe that simply denying an impulse is wrong. Let me more accurately reflect my opinion. I believe that systematically following NFP does alter the nature/effect/intention of sex between couples. That does not make it wrong, and that is not my belief. But the contention that abstaining is acceptable, therefore NFP can not, in any way, alter the “natural” aspect of sex, is dishonest. I still have not heard one reasonable explanation how this can be. Certainly, many if not most instances are perfectly fine. My point is that NFP can have this same negative effect. Which leads me right back to how it is the couple and how they practice/believe/feel/intend that is the important aspect whether the acts are acceptable or not.

I think people are taking this as an attack on the use and intent of NFP. IT IS NOT. I am trying to establish that NFP has the potential to be this alteration that some are saying is categorically impossible. I think otherwise.

 

[PaulinVA]

I think people are taking this as an attack on the use and intent of NFP. IT IS NOT. I am trying to establish that NFP has the potential to be this alteration that some are saying is categorically impossible. I think otherwise.

Well, the dance between members of a couple about whether to have sex on a given day is indeed natural. The act itself is the same whether NFP is used or not.

I think you are talking about the overall sexual relationship a couple has. Farankly, there are a lot of reasons you might want to have relations with your spouse but do not. NFP (fertile period) is one of them. Children, a good movie on TV, getting up early the next day, already showered and not taking one the next morning, feeling unwell, feeling too tense, etc, etc etc all could lead to not having relations any given day.

NFP is just one reason. It doesn’t alter the over sexual relationship - it just adds another consideration to the many considerations already present.

 

[PassingThru]

So, how does this differ from your own assumption that couples using NFP are using it with a contraceptive mentality? You also are making an assumption. You are judging the thoughts of couples based on their action of using NFP. Upon what basis are you saying they have a contraceptive mentality? Just because they have determined that at this time that having another child is more than they can handle?Ummm, might be missing why you disagree here… If a couple practices NFP to avoid a pregnancy, isn’t that basically the definition?

If you’re approaching this from the perspective that since both couples decide they only want two children so each uses a method to avoid that, I believe you’re asking why the couple using NFP is correct while the other is not.No, that is not it exactly. We have gotten way past that point, I dont want to go back over all the posts.

This is not a question of method, it’s a question of motivation and willingness to obey the commands of God given through His Church (which, as a Lutheran, you don’t accept, so you’re trying to argue with something you have not background or belief in).** I am pretty familiar with its teachings, which is why we are down to discussing one or two very distinct points that define the two. And you are right, I am focusing on things like motivation and willingness. I find they are very, if not more important. So we agree. BTW, are you trying to say I can’t discuss because I am not Catholic? Or I am instantly not qualified?**

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.

~Tracy

You seem to be quite upset, but I don’t think you should be. Like you just said, there is nothing wrong with NFP. And I am not saying ABC is good, or indeed even better. I think you are missing the crux of the discussion.

 

[PassingThru]

Well, the dance between members of a couple about whether to have sex on a given day is indeed natural. The act itself is the same whether NFP is used or not.

I think you are talking about the overall sexual relationship a couple has. Farankly, there are a lot of reasons you might want to have relations with your spouse but do not. NFP (fertile period) is one of them. Children, a good movie on TV, getting up early the next day, already showered and not taking one the next morning, feeling unwell, feeling too tense, etc, etc etc all could lead to not having relations any given day.

NFP is just one reason. It doesn’t alter the over sexual relationship - it just adds another consideration to the many considerations already present.

Sounds good to me. So, you would agree with my above assessment:

NFP can not, in any way, alter the natural aspect of sex.

If you do, that is fine. We agree to disagree. I will still be of the mind that NFP is the most sure fire way to stay in good standing with God!
.

 

[PassingThru]

You said: “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?”

It does apply to the overall issue, and that is why I gave the quote from Pope Pius XII. But it is not a difference between natural and artificial birth control. In responding, I’ve keep to your scenario. If we are done with that, I can try to list all the factors. But I think it is not fair of you to set the requirements for the discussion and then not hold to them as I am doing. (Please don’t read this as an angry remark.) I appreciate the difficulty of this issue to describe. Can I ask if you read the Papal Encyclical that I referenced (Pope Pius XII)? papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

I am listing two distinct components to conjugal relations (as does Pope Pius XII): right and use. Right is granting the right to each other, use is exercising the right.

1. Valid marriage: exclusive, perpetual, and open to children, granting conjugal rights to each other, marital right claimable only when not uncharitible or sinful, Church approved marriage with no impediments, sterility acceptable, pre-existing and perpetual inability to consummate invalidates marriage *
2. Conjugal relations - use: respectful and dignified, natural act only
3. Conjugal relations - non-use: abstinance is permissible when mutual and for a time and with sufficient and reliable moral grounds **

---

• It is possible for a marriage to be ratified but never consummated. In that case is it possible for it to be declared null.
  ** sufficient and reliable moral grounds: willingness of both parties, ability to practice continence, unselfish reason (social, eugenic, economic, or medical). Pope Pius XII:
  “Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.”

Whew, you are a thorough person!

I did read (some) of your link, including the birth control section. It talks mostly about what we agree on, which is the state of mind and intention of the couple. Which is fine. It seems to run under the assumption that ABC is unnatural (which it is) and NFP is natural. I still see nothing to explain how NFP is categorically natural, or how it accounts for anything outside of the specific sexual act. It basically makes the assumption and runs with it. Most of your post are things we agree on right down the line. The only thing you put in that I have a potential disagreement with is the bolded section “natural act only”. And I dont think I have unfairly limited my question. I am asking how you can be sure NFP does not alter natural act in a broader sense. I think by its very nature it can. (Not that it WILL, but it CAN). You say no.

I am starting to think that there is no explanation for my question. Which is perfectly fine. It becomes a matter of faith, which is great. That is how I have viewed it for quite some time. Trying to put some form of logic or reason to it could likely be a futile effort.

However, I must say that I think this lack of a sound, rational, or logical reason is probably what is destroying the resistance to ABC. There is a reason that such a huge majority of Catholics (and non Catholics for that matter) have rejected it. I don’t mean for that to sound like an attack, I mean it with sincerity. If people could understand WHY it is different, they may change their minds. With the Church professing it is 99.9% effective, they are basically broadcasting “NFP is the most effective contraceptive ever!” and I think that lowers peoples resistance to ABC. Just my theory, of course.

 

[Tracy_Spenst]

You seem to be quite upset, but I don’t think you should be. Like you just said, there is nothing wrong with NFP. And I am not saying ABC is good, or indeed even better. I think you are missing the crux of the discussion.

One of the great drawbacks of the 'Net is that people are not able to see/hear one another in such discussions. Actually, I’m not upset at all except that this discussion keeps going in the same circles.

BTW, are you trying to say I can’t discuss because I am not Catholic? Or I am instantly not qualified?

Obviously another instance where you cannot “hear” me, so you’re making an assumption. No, I didn’t mean that at all. What I’m pointing out is that as Catholics we accept the authority of the Church on these matters. As a Lutheran, you don’t accept that authority or you would be Catholic! .

Apparently I am not the person to talk about this with you, so I will bow out and let others figure out the issue with you.

~Tracy

 

[una_fides]

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?

Tracy,

Good post. This part in particular is a good explanation of how it is not “unnatural” in the same way to suppress urges as it is to alter the marital act to render it unable to produce conception when conception could otherwise occur. Altering the body is entirely different than suppressing urges for a greater good (i.e. you have a grave reason for avoiding intercourse during fertile periods).

The easy response is “trust the Church,” which Scripture tells us is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15) but for our non-Catholic friend here, unfortunately he is not yet there on his journey. So in the mean time, hopefully these responses will provide enough to understand the why’s behind the Church’s decision.

 

[una_fides]

I think people are taking this as an attack on the use and intent of NFP. IT IS NOT. I am trying to establish that NFP has the potential to be this alteration that some are saying is categorically impossible. I think otherwise.

NFP can be abused and used with a contraceptive mentality. I think we all agree on that. The question is whether it is morally permissible when one has a grave reason to use it. By the way, you keep saying that this and that is not what you believe. I’m curious at this point, how would you summarize your thoughts as to the morality of NFP and ABC.

 

[PassingThru]

Tracy,

Good post. This part in particular is a good explanation of how it is not “unnatural” in the same way to suppress urges as it is to alter the marital act to render it unable to produce conception when conception could otherwise occur. Altering the body is entirely different than suppressing urges for a greater good (i.e. you have a grave reason for avoiding intercourse during fertile periods).

The easy response is “trust the Church,” which Scripture tells us is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15) but for our non-Catholic friend here, unfortunately he is not yet there on his journey. So in the mean time, hopefully these responses will provide enough to understand the why’s behind the Church’s decision.

Ahhh, you are back!

I have previously asked for your (name removed by moderator)ut on specific questions. I think they would help me to understand your position. Will you answer them? You really seem to be avoiding a response.

To your response: I agree that it is not “unnatural” to suppress urges. I specifically covered this and corrected my error. Why are you ignoring this? I agree it is different than altering (using ABC). We are also not discussing which has or does not have any “greater good”. That is independent of our discussion. I know it keeps being added back in, because that makes the assumption that NFP is avoiding children for a “just reason”, and it makes ABC look like sexual deviants at a bar.

 

[una_fides]

I still see nothing to explain how NFP is categorically natural, or how it accounts for anything outside of the specific sexual act.

However, I must say that I think this lack of a sound, rational, or logical reason is probably what is destroying the resistance to ABC. There is a reason that such a huge majority of Catholics (and non Catholics for that matter) have rejected it. I don’t mean for that to sound like an attack, I mean it with sincerity. If people could understand WHY it is different, they may change their minds. With the Church professing it is 99.9% effective, they are basically broadcasting “NFP is the most effective contraceptive ever!” and I think that lowers peoples resistance to ABC. Just my theory, of course.

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.

 

[PassingThru]

Hey Una,

Before I respond, would you return the favor? I previously asked some relatively straightforward questions, but you seem to be dodging them. Would you care to respond? I think they are key to understanding your point of view.

 

[Vico]

… It seems to run under the assumption that ABC is unnatural (which it is) and NFP is natural. I still see nothing to explain how NFP is categorically natural, or how it accounts for anything outside of the specific sexual act. It basically makes the assumption and runs with it. … I am asking how you can be sure NFP does not alter natural act in a broader sense. I think by its very nature it can. (Not that it WILL, but it CAN). You say no. …

The way I detailed it, “natural act” means one instance of conjugal relations and requires not using anything artificial (technology like barriers, hormones, sterilization, devices, etc.).

The broader sense is based upon the motives to avoid conception so is covered under the groups I created: 1. Valid marriage and 3. Conjugal relations - non-use.

Pope Pius XII covered that broader sense in detail, as this is all in context of a valid marriage where that the marriage partners must always be open to children, and ready to grant the conjugal right when not sinful. See the previous post: "Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,”.

 

[ManOnFire]

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.

 

[PassingThru]

NFP can be abused and used with a contraceptive mentality. I think we all agree on that. The question is whether it is morally permissible when one has a grave reason to use it. By the way, you keep saying that this and that is not what you believe. I’m curious at this point, how would you summarize your thoughts as to the morality of NFP and ABC.

Vico and I are discussing past this point, as it can equally apply or not apply to both (permissibility, that is). That is one of the ways we have narrowed our focus. I don’t think we disagree here.

I don’t really want to do another summary, as this will open more cans of worms that we have already closed, but here goes:

I don’t think either is intrinsically moral or immoral. I think it is how/why people use these methods that determines any morality you want to attach to it.

Most of the Catholic teachings, rightfully so, focus on spiritual aspects. Open to life. Giving. Unitive. For grave or other justified reasons. These are things that neither NFP or ABC can hold as exclusive domain.

This leaves the aspect of the physical alteration (ABC) and the behavioral aspect (NFP). I think behavioral is a roughly accurate word to use. Close enough. As Vico and I have been discussing, Catholic teaching holds that for sex to fulfill Catholic requirements, the act has to be natural, or unaltered. I think we are down to this point as our last disagreement. Depending on how you define it, NFP is either capable, or incapable of violating this requirement. Thats it.

If you do see that it can somehow alter this requirement, I don’t see much left to distinguish between the two. But, and this is a big but, almost all of these topics hinge on the individual couples and how THEY view/practice/believe etc in these important areas.

I don’t know if I can boil it down any more than that.

 

[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.

OK, media and society could do just as much. No disagreements there.

I do NOT, however, equate your emphasis on mens sex drive to ABC. Does it enable that behavior in those who look for it? Sure thing. Cause for some? Undoubtedly. But I know (and you do to!) plenty of couples that use ABC with none of the characteristics you describe. But as it relates to why ABC is so common, I agree with your point, and it is surely a factor.

 

[PassingThru]

The way I detailed it, “natural act” means one instance of conjugal relations and requires not using anything artificial (technology like barriers, hormones, sterilization, devices, etc.).

The broader sense is based upon the motives to avoid conception so is covered under the groups I created: 1. Valid marriage and 3. Conjugal relations - non-use.

Pope Pius XII covered that broader sense in detail, as this is all in context of a valid marriage where that the marriage partners must always be open to children, and ready to grant the conjugal right when not sinful. See the previous post: "Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,”.

Vico, I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I feel like I am arguing with a dictionary sometimes!!! I never get much of a concrete response from you!

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?

If that is your definition, then yes, NFP is admissible, ABC is not. And there is no getting around that. I still do not agree it is that simple, and I think that is an artificial way to limit the discussion, but regardless. If that is the teaching, then we agree to disagree. At least we agree on basically all other teachings regarding the morality of children and sex!

 

[Ignatius]

Natural Family planning is acceptable because it works in cooperation with the way God made our bodies.
The argument that “the outcome is the same” is specious. It is analogous to the following:
Aunt Mildred, who is going to leave a great deal of money when she dies, is growing very old. We could wait until God decides to take her, or we could give her poison. The outcome is the same, so what’s wrong with the second option?

Do you see the problem?
We need to do things in cooperation with Gods plan!