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

[PassingThru]

One problem I see with this is your claim that the wrongness of ABC is just an assumption.

It is not an assumption, it is a rationale conclusion based on the natural law regarding sexual relations.

For the sake of a rational discussion, you can not assume the outcome. But Ill leave that alone for now.

So, lets run with your statement. Can you outline this rationale concerning natural law? At this point it is simply a statement. One could just as easily say “NFP violates natural law regarding sexual relations.” At this point it is unsupported. I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your assertion.

 

[fix]

Hey fix, Ill respond to you first as your question is faster!

By practical, I mean not requiring any specific religious dogma, if you will. For example, I don’t need any specific Catholic or Lutheran teaching to know I shouldn’t kill my neighbor for not mowing his lawn. Or beat a child, or lie in a store to get free goods, etc. I don’t want to dive in to a theological debate on the genesis of these social standards. At this point it is a given that most sane people follow these guidelines without needing any one specific religious authority to derive these behaviors. Call it common sense if you will.

More specifically, if you believe that ABC wrong, you can say it is because of the bible, or tradition, or even Catholic teaching. “The Catholic Church teaches that artificially contracepted sex is forbidden” is not something I could argue against you for believing. However, if you say “ABC is forbidden because of X”, this is something different. Now X is on the table, and needs to be clearly applicable to ABC, but not to NFP (assuming NFP is being held as acceptable practice). This is why St Francis’ argument, to me, holds no water. The “X” here is that ABC allows you to “take advantage of the pleasure without accepting the demands of the act”. Well that may be true. But I think it is plain as day that NFP also allows this to occur. Therefore it is NOT a distinguishing characteristic. Most of these types of statements rely on the assumption that contracepted sex is wrong. You can not make that assumption if that is question we are trying to answer. The same goes for many other X’s that are brought up. I don’t want to list them all, but many have come up in this thread. So to answer your question, the practical part of my statement is the “X” that is used to establish a position. If it is something we can observe here and now, it needs to be clearly true. I haven’t seen one yet that is.

Does that help explain my thinking at all?

Still not really following your position. I will say that some acts are self evidently wrong. Even then for some people they are not self evident for various reasons.

So, the prohibition regarding contraception is based on the natural moral law. The problem is not every person is able to see that clearly, which happens with other issues all the time.

 

[PassingThru]

I agree wholeheartedly. It all flows nicely if you accept the teaching at face value; like I have done in my previous posts. But once one tries to explain the why’s…it gets unclear, imo. Ultimately the question you should be asking is why must each act be procreative; that is why must each act be “ordered toward life.” I believe you should ignore the whole NFP and abc debate and go straight to the root of the issue. Why must each act be ordered toward life?

You bring up a good way to look at it. I think it provides me an opportunity to elaborate on the logical sequence that brings us here.

If NFP did not exist, we would be back where the Church stood against ABC, for all of the many reasons that have been debated here. There would be near absolute consistency, and I do not think I would have any reason to debate the position. I may not agree with it, but it would just boil down to be me disagreeing, basically theologically, with the Church.

Similarly, if the Church also stood against NFP (hypothetically), there would be nothing I could say to make a case for ABC. For all the reasons given, the Church would be standing firm on its position.

This is to say, I do not think ABC is acceptable according to the teachings of the Church. However, the fact of the matter is that the Church has given its express permission for the use of NFP. This gives us a direct corollary with which to examine the rules and logic given to both reject ABC and accept NFP. It is not that I disagree with the Church for teaching against ABC. It is simply that its support for NFP undermines the reasons given for this rejection of ABC.

So, in effect, you are right. Church teaching rightfully focuses on issues “ordered toward life”. And if I felt it were consistent on this, I would have no disagreements. Unfortunately, this is not the case we are dealing with.

 

[PassingThru]

Still not really following your position. I will say that some acts are self evidently wrong. Even then for some people they are not self evident for various reasons.

So, the prohibition regarding contraception is based on the natural moral law. The problem is not every person is able to see that clearly, which happens with other issues all the time.

Well, for example, you just filled in my hypothetical proposition above. You filled in the “X” with your statement. Essentially, “ABC is prohibited because it violates the natural moral law”. OK, this is a perfectly acceptable assertion. So, the question is then, how does it violate this law, and, how does NFP not violate this law?

If you can, read my post above explaining my position on ABC. It is not that I disagree with the Church teaching against ABC. It is its acceptance of NFP in relation to ABC.

 

[Vico]

…
“ABC is prohibited because it violates the natural moral law”. …
So, the question is then, how does it [ABC] violate this law, and, how does NFP not violate this law?..

The natural moral law:
Robbing (or attempting to rob) the conjugal act of its “natural power and purpose” (begetting of children) is a sin against nature.

How:
Use of NFP does not rob (or attempt to rob) the conjugal act of its power because the act occurs during a naturally infertile time.
ABC creates an artificially infertile time (or attempts to) so it robs (or attemps to rob) the conjugal act of its power.

 

[PassingThru]

The natural moral law:
Robbing (or attempting to rob) the conjugal act of its “natural power and purpose” (begetting of children) is a sin against nature.

How:
Use of NFP does not rob (or attempt to rob) the conjugal act of its power because the act occurs during a naturally infertile time.
ABC creates an artificially infertile time (or attempts to) so it robs (or attemps to rob) the conjugal act of its power.

And the circle is complete! It like we traveled back back in time.

Is there any moral teaching, or moral equivalent, to The Natural Moral Law that takes into account the exact some principal, but actually apply it past an individual instance? Over a period of time, NFP obviously “robs the conjugal act of its natural power and purpose”, as I am sure you would agree. Is there no mention of this? Or is that the loophole?

 

[Doc_Keele]

The natural moral law:
Robbing (or attempting to rob) the conjugal act of its “natural power and purpose” (begetting of children) is a sin against nature.

How:
Use of NFP does not rob (or attempt to rob) the conjugal act of its power because the act occurs during a naturally infertile time.
ABC creates an artificially infertile time (or attempts to) so it robs (or attemps to rob) the conjugal act of its power.

It boils down to “natural”=good=godly
“artificial”=bad=ungodly
but this prinicple is not applied to other bodily functions

ludicrous

 

[Vico]

…
Is there any moral teaching, or moral equivalent, to The Natural Moral Law that takes into account the exact some principal, but actually apply it past an individual instance? …

Yes, the sin against the nature of married life. The primary duty of a marriage is that it should be naturally fruitful, if possible. That is why 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

A married man and a woman establish a lifelong exclusive partnership which of its nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to procreation and raising children. And each spouse has an equal obligation and right to whatever pertains to the partnership of conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them. And it is never lawful to use ABC but there may be sufficient reason to use NFP.

 

[Vico]

It boils down to “natural”=good=godly
“artificial”=bad=ungodly
but this prinicple is not applied to other bodily functions

ludicrous

It is not natural to mutilate oneself with drugs or sterilization.

Natural enjoyment is not wrong, only disordered enjoyment. Concupiescence is the insubordination of the desires to reason, and the propensity of human nature to sin (as a result of original sin).

I think you will have to supply a ludicrous example to be taken seriously.

 

[davidv]

And the circle is complete! It like we traveled back back in time.

Is there any moral teaching, or moral equivalent, to The Natural Moral Law that takes into account the exact some principal, but actually apply it past an individual instance? Over a period of time, NFP obviously “robs the conjugal act of its natural power and purpose”, as I am sure you would agree.

How does it do this? NFP does not alter the conjugal act.

Is there no mention of this? Or is that the loophole?

No loop hole.

A good act can be made immoral by immoral intentions. So NFP used for the wrong reason is immoral

Conversely, no matter how good the intentions, these intentions cannot convert an immoral act into a moral one.

 

[St_Francis]

It boils down to “natural”=good=godly
“artificial”=bad=ungodly
but this prinicple is not applied to other bodily functions

ludicrous

I believe that this is related to your previous comment (so far back I am not even thinking of looking for it) that in order to be consistent the Church would have to forbid the use of medicine, etc.

Medicine, when used to fix a *malfunction *of the body or to reduce pain, is being used to get the body to a state aproximating the state God intended. ABC is intended to totally mess up the use of the body according to the way God intended.

Here the issue is that the ends desired of each act differ. The means are similar, so you think they both should be either moral or immoral, but since the end of each is different, it turns out that one is moral and the other immoral.

 

[St_Francis]

And the circle is complete! It like we traveled back back in time.

Is there any moral teaching, or moral equivalent, to The Natural Moral Law that takes into account the exact some principal, but actually apply it past an individual instance? Over a period of time, NFP obviously “robs the conjugal act of its natural power and purpose”, as I am sure you would agree. Is there no mention of this? Or is that the loophole?

But it doesn’t, it *respects *the power of the conjugal act. It doesn’t eradicate the power of the conjugal act.

 

[Christopher68]

I believe that this is related to your previous comment (so far back I am not even thinking of looking for it) that in order to be consistent the Church would have to forbid the use of medicine, etc.

Medicine, when used to fix a *malfunction *of the body or to reduce pain, is being used to get the body to a state aproximating the state God intended. ABC is intended to totally mess up the use of the body according to the way God intended.

Here the issue is that the ends desired of each act differ. The means are similar, so you think they both should be either moral or immoral, but since the end of each is different, it turns out that one is moral and the other immoral.

I would disagree with your middle paragraph above. I believe virtually all medical breakthroughs have been for the good. For instance, birth control for family planning, vaccines to eliminate diseases like polio, etc., modern surgical procedures to combat heart problems and cancer, etc. - all of these allow the individual to take a more engaged and pro-active role in their own life. In this way, medical advances are a tool that God has given us so we can better help ourselves.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I believe that this is related to your previous comment (so far back I am not even thinking of looking for it) that in order to be consistent the Church would have to forbid the use of medicine, etc.

Medicine, when used to fix a *malfunction *of the body or to reduce pain, is being used to get the body to a state aproximating the state God intended. ABC is intended to totally mess up the use of the body according to the way God intended.

Here the issue is that the ends desired of each act differ. The means are similar, so you think they both should be either moral or immoral, but since the end of each is different, it turns out that one is moral and the other immoral.

So when it suits the Church to make a teleological analysis it does, and when it suits the Church to make a deontological analysis it swaps models???

Medicine is purely about correcting malfunctions? Hardly. The distinction between altering bodily funtions and restoring bodily functions is not a moral distinction for me. NFP is achieving the same aim, having sex without conceiving. NFP is not natural.

 

[Doc_Keele]

It is not natural to mutilate oneself with drugs or sterilization.

Natural enjoyment is not wrong, only disordered enjoyment. Concupiescence is the insubordination of the desires to reason, and the propensity of human nature to sin (as a result of original sin).

I think you will have to supply a ludicrous example to be taken seriously.

LOL!

NFP is not natural!

How can one “mutilate” oneself with drugs???
HUH?

It’s you that’s providing the ludicrous examples so far for me. NFP strikes me as disordered enjoyment just as much as sex using ABC. You’re just trotting out the same circular arguments time after time.

If ABC is wrong because you shouldn’t have sex without running the risk of pregnancy (and no one’s sought to prove that premise at all, but let’s just accept it for the sake of argument), then NFP is exactly the same.
NFP is also abortifacient (under some “Pro-Life” definitions of the term).

 

[St_Francis]

LOL!

NFP is not natural!

How can one “mutilate” oneself with drugs???
HUH?

It’s you that’s providing the ludicrous examples so far for me. NFP strikes me as disordered enjoyment just as much as sex using ABC. You’re just trotting out the same circular arguments time after time.

If ABC is wrong because you shouldn’t have sex without running the risk of pregnancy (and no one’s sought to prove that premise at all, but let’s just accept it for the sake of argument), then NFP is exactly the same.
NFP is also abortifacient (under some “Pro-Life” definitions of the term).

This is where you are wrong and why you don’t understand what we are saying. Trying to avoid conception is *not *wrong. Frustrating the sexual act is where the problem lies.

 

[St_Francis]

So when it suits the Church to make a teleological analysis it does, and when it suits the Church to make a deontological analysis it swaps models???

Well, sometimes I take my car to the shop and they hook it up to a computer to find out the problem, and sometimes I take it to the shop and they use a non-computer tool to find the problem… the tools you use depend on the problem.

As someone else and I explained to PassThru earlier, there are three aspects to an act. Each of those must be moral in order for an act to be moral.

Medicine is purely about correcting malfunctions? Hardly. The distinction between altering bodily funtions and restoring bodily functions is not a moral distinction for me. NFP is achieving the same aim, having sex without conceiving. NFP is not natural.

The fact that something is not a moral distinction *for you *is pretty much irrelevant to whether something is or is not moral.

As to medicine, in what other area do we find medical research going in the direction of *frustrating *the purpose of a bodily function? No other area. Why? Because no one really wants to *stop *the heart beating, the blood circulating, the kidneys cleansing out stuff, etc. So all of medicine except for this one area is devoted to fixing declines from the norm. Only in this area does medicine work towards extinguishing the function.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well, sometimes I take my car to the shop and they hook it up to a computer to find out the problem, and sometimes I take it to the shop and they use a non-computer tool to find the problem… the tools you use depend on the problem

Not an appropriate analogy at all.

As someone else and I explained to PassThru earlier, there are three aspects to an act. Each of those must be moral in order for an act to be moral

Well that’s the approach the Church claims to follow. It is not the only approach.

The fact that something is not a moral distinction *for you *is pretty much irrelevant to whether something is or is not moral

Constructive comment
Can you prove to me that there’s a moral difference between altering body function and restoring body function? If you can, I will respond to your proof.

As to medicine, in what other area do we find medical research going in the direction of *frustrating *the purpose of a bodily function? No other area. Why? Because no one really wants to *stop *the heart beating, the blood circulating, the kidneys cleansing out stuff, etc. So all of medicine except for this one area is devoted to fixing declines from the norm. Only in this area does medicine work towards extinguishing the function.

Plenty of areas actually! There’s all sorts of things which are “normal” that people want to change. Do people want to stop the heart beating sometimes? Actually yes. You’re factually wrong.
In any case, the distinction would make no difference. There’s all sorts of things that the medical profession gets involved in for various reasons that could be regarded as not “medicine”.

 

[Doc_Keele]

This is where you are wrong and why you don’t understand what we are saying. Trying to avoid conception is *not *wrong. Frustrating the sexual act is where the problem lies.

I do understand what you’re saying - it’s just not logical. NFP is also frustrating the sexual act. And you haven’t explained why frustrating the sexual act is wrong.

 

[St_Francis]

Not an appropriate analogy at all.

How so?

Well that’s the approach the Church claims to follow. It is not the only approach.

Oh, there are lots of other approaches, but just because they exist doesn’t make them right.

Can you prove to me that there’s a moral difference between altering body function and restoring body function? If you can, I will respond to your proof.

Vasectomy.

Plenty of areas actually! There’s all sorts of things which are “normal” that people want to change. Do people want to stop the heart beating sometimes? Actually yes. You’re factually wrong.

Not at all. The purpose of stopping the heart for a limited time so that surgery may be done is to restore a function. People who go around stopping hearts altogether are not called doctors, they are called murderers.

In any case, the distinction would make no difference. There’s all sorts of things that the medical profession gets involved in for various reasons that could be regarded as not “medicine”.

Did you mean to write this?