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

[St_Francis]

I’m in a Protestant considering conversion to Catholicism, so take what I say with a grain of salt, obviously. Although I’ve been told that converts tend to be a bit more “rabid” than those raised as Catholics, because they come to it on their own. I’ve been voraciously reading everything that I can get my hands on about the Catholic faith, and the issue of contraception is one that I’ve taken a great deal of interest in, as I am fanatically pro-life, but it always confused me why Catholics protest the use of condoms.

I also must confess that I visit this site in spurts on and off…so I haven’t read this whole thread given its length. If these points have been made previously, my apologies.

I’ve come to the conclusion, and I don’t see how anyone can conclude otherwise, that the Church very clearly teaches that NFP is ok, but only in certain circumstances. From Humanae Vitea (emphasis mine):

The bolded part pretty clearly indicates to me that NFP is not something to be engaged in lightly. Circumstances must warrant it. I’ve talked to a few of my friends that are devout Catholics, and they affirmed my understanding.

As to the original poster’s question, again, turn to Humanae Vitae:

This all seems pretty cut and dry to me…

Welcome to the board, JHigh, and I hope you enter the Catholic Church as well

 

[jhigh]

Welcome to the board, JHigh, and I hope you enter the Catholic Church as well

Thanks. My wife and I are actually meeting with the Monsignor of a local parish tomorrow to discuss conversions. We both have a few things we’re kind of hung up on, but provided we can be made to understand these things, we’ll probably convert.

 

[St_Francis]

Thanks. My wife and I are actually meeting with the Monsignor of a local parish tomorrow to discuss conversions. We both have a few things we’re kind of hung up on, but provided we can be made to understand these things, we’ll probably convert.

Terrific

You can ask about those issues here and there on the board, too.

 

[Vico]

…
The act of NOT doing something can also be “wrong”. nows Joe uses daily. …

That is exactly what is wrong with both ABC and NFP, when used for reasons that are not sound or moral, as given by per Pope Pius XII: going against the marital duty to produce children (by abstaining during fertile periods with NFP or making fertile periods infertile with ABC). And ABC additionally is bad because it is doing something intrinsically against nature.

 

[Doc_Keele]

There are no zygotes lost. If no conception occurs, there is no zygote; if conception occurs, the zygote is not “lost”.

You know, Passing Through presented arguments and tried to understand what we were saying. You on the other hand are twisting words and facts to make your points…

Sorry, but the scientific evidence shows that zygotes are formed but don’t implant because intercourse occurs outside the period when the endometrium is receptive. Can’t give you a reference off the top of my head tho.

 

[Abu]

jhigh
This all seems pretty cut and dry to me…

You are perfectly correct, and congratulations on your journey home. The definitions against contraception in Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930), and in Humanae Vitae (Paul VI, 1968) teach doctrine infallibly according to the dogma on papal infallibility in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I.

If you need more information on this just ask me.

God bless

 

[Vico]

Sorry, but the scientific evidence shows that zygotes are formed but don’t implant because intercourse occurs outside the period when the endometrium is receptive. Can’t give you a reference off the top of my head tho.

Some basics:

There is only a 24 to 72 hour period per month when a woman’s ovum is capable of being fertilized. No ovum release and no sperm means no fertilization, no zygote, and no implantation. NFP is the timing of intercourse to avoid pregnancy for that month.

ABC results in what you describe.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Thanks for that vico - a doctor really needs to know the basics
I will dig out the paper which tells the proper science, rather than a grossly simplified version:thumbsup:

 

[St_Francis]

Sorry, but the scientific evidence shows that zygotes are formed but don’t implant because intercourse occurs outside the period when the endometrium is receptive. Can’t give you a reference off the top of my head tho.

No reference. Big surprise.

However, IF this happens, then it would also happen to people who were not trying to avoid conception, no?

 

[St_Francis]

No reference. Big surprise.

Sorry, doc! didn’t see your post just before mine!

However, IF this happens, then it would also happen to people who were not trying to avoid conception, no?

 

[Humbled1]

First off, I am Catholic, and, to the best of my knowledge, I follow the teachings of the Church. And I don’t do so half-heartedly, I love the Church and her wisdom. We don’t use NFP, but rather welcome our children at the times we are blessed with them.

(Please note that I do not find any difficulty in spouses who abstain for long periods of time due to medical/spiritual reasons or to avoid conception.)

The reason that the sex had during NFP is sterile is** not because of a process which has rendered it such**; that is the *normal *condition for women, to be fertile only at certain times. Surely you as a doctor know this?

It is not a sin to avoid having children at a certain time for serious reasons.

It is not a sin to engage in the marital embrace during those times when the woman is not fertile.

It is not a sin to mutually decide to avoid the marital embrace.

So, there is no sin involved in NFP.

However, it is a sin to engage in sexual relations while taking an action to pervert their ends.

NFP is the only Church teaching that I have difficulty wrapping my head around… and it’s specifically for the reason that seems to be presented here over and again: NFP is not simply choosing to abstain at a random point in time, but is a systematic plan/process to avoid conception.

And, as others have stated, the intent to the “inaction” is very important. The intent is specifically to be able to enjoy the conjugal act each month while avoiding conception.

As Catholics, we know that we can be guilty of sins of both commission and omission. So we recognize that inaction can in fact be sinful… and that one of the deciding factors as to whether or not that inaction is sinful is the intent behind that inaction.

I understand that each of the conjugal acts alone are not sinful and, as stated above, that abstinence is not sinful, but NFP is taught as a whole (monitoring throughout the month, month after month), not as individual acts. Therefore it seems that the intent and morality of it needs to also be looked at as a whole, not just as parts.

 

[PassingThru]

I think you have complete missed the analogy.

The problem with your analogy is that Charlie did indeed *do *something, and do something which could very easily and reasonably be seen to be able to cause harm to someone walking through the door. This is not only sinful, it is noted legally and is against the law.

Correct, Charlie did indeed do something, none of which on its own is wrong. You are also right that he knows what the end result would be. Somehow you got confused because the end result is murder. That is irrelevant. If it makes you more comfortable, change it to be something benign, like dumping a bucket of paint of his head, vs Amy walking up and dumping paint over Joes head. But the point is the same, none of what Charlie did only any individual day was wrong. But he KNEW the end result. (See the similarity to NFP? None of the steps involved are wrong, but the end result is a separation of sex from children. I dont think I can make this more clear, but I think you didn’t catch it)

NFP requires *not *doing something, in a context which is *not *sinful. We have explained that not a single action or non-action involved in NFP is sinful.

Sigh. NFP DOES involve doing something, as it is a specific set of steps (temps, biological observance, charts, along with timing of sex). Again, none of these are wrong, just as none of Charlies step were individually wrong. The sinful part you are thinking of is the end result of Joe getting killed, which is analogous to NFP successfully preventing pregnancy. Again, the morality of murder is irrelevant to the analogy. I think you missed this again.

You are saying that abc is sinful because the couple are trying to avoid conception, and since people who use nfp are also trying to avoid conception, they are each equally sinful. But that is not the case, because the part which is sinful is *not *the avoidance of children.

NO. I am accepting ABC as sinful. Your assertion is that NFP can not be sinful because each part of NFP is benign. I am showing that just because steps are benign, the process as a whole can still be, in some form, “malicious”.

Consider this: when a couple uses abc each and every time they have sex, they sin each and every time, *even when they do it during the infertile time. *

No disagreement.

I am trying my best, but I don’t think you are allowing yourself to think logically past your initial gut reaction. If you could, try and re-read this analogy, and think about WHY you instantly connect Charlies action with culpability, and WHY you think of NFP differently.

 

[jhigh]

First off, I am Catholic, and, to the best of my knowledge, I follow the teachings of the Church. And I don’t do so half-heartedly, I love the Church and her wisdom. We don’t use NFP, but rather welcome our children at the times we are blessed with them.

(Please note that I do not find any difficulty in spouses who abstain for long periods of time due to medical/spiritual reasons or to avoid conception.)

NFP is the only Church teaching that I have difficulty wrapping my head around… and it’s specifically for the reason that seems to be presented here over and again: NFP is not simply choosing to abstain at a random point in time, but is a systematic plan/process to avoid conception.

And, as others have stated, the intent to the “inaction” is very important. The intent is specifically to be able to enjoy the conjugal act each month while avoiding conception.

As Catholics, we know that we can be guilty of sins of both commission and omission. So we recognize that inaction can in fact be sinful… and that one of the deciding factors as to whether or not that inaction is sinful is the intent behind that inaction.

I understand that each of the conjugal acts alone are not sinful and, as stated above, that abstinence is not sinful, but NFP is taught as a whole (monitoring throughout the month, month after month), not as individual acts. Therefore it seems that the intent and morality of it needs to also be looked at as a whole, not just as parts.

I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head. As a Protestant studying these issues as I consider whether or not to convert, it appears to me that NFP is something that many Catholics are actually abusing for their own gratification. As I posted earlier, it seems apparent to me in Humanae Vitae that NFP is only acceptable under certain circumstances. It was not intended that Catholics would use NFP in the same way that one might use condoms. Humanae Vitae specifically cites, “physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances.” I don’t see this as justification for using NFP for just run of the mill contraception.

 

[PassingThru]

The thing about moral discussions is that they are about morality. Morality was set up by God; therefore, He is the Prime Authority on these issues. The Catholic Church, as the institution set up by Christ to teach what He taught the Apostles and protected in Her teachings by the Holy Spirit, is the “vicar of moral authority.” So, saying that God said so, when He did in fact do so “publicly” (recorded for all to read in the Bible), is not at all the same as saying my mother said so. My mother can be wrong, God cannot be.

(I will admit that once having determined that God did indeed condemn onanism we would then have to work on the ramifications of that, why did God condemn it and whether the extension of that condemnation to abc is justifiable, etc. but I do not think that you can typify what I wrote as a mere appeal to authority.)

And your proposed solution, to discuss a Catholic dogma without referencing specific church’s dogma? The only place that leads to is religious indifferentism, well, this part of my religion is not important, and neither is that part, gee, I guess I’m just left with all the bits that everyone else will agree with!

In discussions I have had on more theological topics, I have seen people do things like this: Prove X from Scripture. Well, the thing is, some of those topics are nuanced and are taught more from Tradition* or you can only understand it through Tradition, but the other person refuses to accept anything other than the Bible.

Well, that’s sort of like saying, Prove this physics thing using only biology. I cannot “prove” Catholic teaching from *outside *of Catholic beliefs and understandings, I have to use Catholicism to prove it. I can give pragmatic reasons why something the Catholic Church teaches is useful, but looking at it from that point of view ultimately skews our understanding–you can only take that so far.

So I can “prove” something to someone who accepts the same standards of proof which I accept. Maybe I would run into a devout Catholic who happened not to know about the prohibition on abc–I could explain it to her. But I cannot explain it to you, for example, because you do not accept the same sources of information that I do.

In a court of law, the appeal to authority *can *be made, and often is: You should do X because the higher court ruled Y in a similar instance. And that higher court may well have ruled that way because of some other case in a parallel court, and so on. (Oddly enough, US law is built on English law, which is based on previous decisions… originally made using Catholic thinking.)

So I come to the conclusion that this is (yet another!) area in which all that I, at least, can do is to explain our position, not prove it. IE: abc is wrong because God condemned Onanism, and the reason that He condemned Onanism is that it frustrated the end of the sexual act, which is what abc does, so it too is wrong. That’s as far as I can go. (Altho consider this: suppose a married couple used condoms, but only during the fertile period. They would not be committing a sin outside the fertile period because they would be doing nothing at that point to frustrate the end of the act. Does that help?)

So I don’t think it is *dishonest. *I think that when people start off at different points, they each have to accept that, and allow the other to present the points from their point of view, and then if any debate goes on, it would have to start from the initial point of disagreement rather than be about something further along the trail of thinking. For me, God is very much really *there, *and very much affects how the world works. I see too many people trying to justify immorality by excluding God from a place where He ought to be. And of course I see God through the lens of Catholic theology.

And even then, it may have to be looked at like this: given your premises, I see the logic of what you are saying. I disagree only because my premises are different. I think that for one person to say that something has to be proven along lines outside the purviews of the antecedent thinking is asking too much. So we would end up talking like this: as a Catholic, I see this and that; As a Lutheran, I see something else.

*which is not regular tradition like it’s traditional for Western Catholics to make the Sign of the Cross a certain way but the body of teachings which come down to us from Christ

Ehhhhh, I don’t really know where to go with all of this. I think you are so far “off the trail” of discussing the distinctions between NFP and ABC, I do not think we can pull you back on.

Nothing you are talking about is related to why NFP is acceptable vice ABC. Nothing I am saying has anything to do with ABC being moral, yet you somehow keep going back to that point. Why, I have no idea.

My beliefs have nothing to do with this. I have not mentioned them once. Your beliefs are fine, I have never said they were wrong. You said yourself:

“ABC is wrong because God condemned Onanism, and the reason that He condemned Onanism is that it frustrated the end of the sexual act, which is what abc does, so it too is wrong. That’s as far as I can go.”

Well, that is the problem right there. You seem to refuse to think past that point (which I accept, BTW), and discuss how this applies, or does not apply, to NFP. And why.

I know I sound like a jerk right now, and I am trying not too. I do not think you can take your logic past the first step, which you have repeated a dozen times. This is not an attempt to convince you that ABC is right, but I doubt you will get past that mindset.

 

[PassingThru]

I am kind of surprised no one else has commented on my previous analogy. It was buried at the end of a long winded post, so I will repeat it here. Or maybe everyone hated it. Regardless, I was hoping to hear how this does or does not apply, and why people thought so.

---

There are 2 people. Both hate Joe.

Charlie decides to do something about it. Over the course of many weeks, Charlie builds a machine, or contraption, around a door that he knows Joe uses daily. Every day, Charlie adds a piece to his contraption. A sturdy shelf. Some rope. A pulley. A rock. Some twine. After many days have passed, Charlie is done, and heads home happy with his work.

Monday morning, Joe walks through the door, and is promptly smashed in the head with a 100 pound boulder and dies instantly.

Conversely, Amy also hates Joe (he miraculously recovered from the boulder incident

Amy walks up and blows Joes brains out with a .45.

In court, our friend Amy is obviously screwed. She will undoubtedly be spending 50 to life in San Quinton.

Charlie, however, feels he has an iron clad way out of any culpability for Joe’s death. He carefully lays out how none of the actions he took killed Joe. One day he put up a shelf. Another he attached a pulley to the doorframe. Another day he tied a rope to the rock. And so on, and clearly, none of the actions he did killed Joe. He then went on to explain how he is not responsible for the conditions present at the time Joe was killed. After all, Charlie did not create physics, or more specifically gravity. Nor did he create Force, which combined with the gravity and the Mass of the boulder to smash poor Joes skull. It is also not Charlies fault that he is observant enough to know that Joe walks through that door. Charlie didn’t make him walk there, his employer did.

So, did Charlie kill Joe?

 

[jhigh]

I am kind of surprised no one else has commented on my previous analogy. It was buried at the end of a long winded post, so I will repeat it here. Or maybe everyone hated it. Regardless, I was hoping to hear how this does or does not apply, and why people thought so.

---

There are 2 people. Both hate Joe.

Charlie decides to do something about it. Over the course of many weeks, Charlie builds a machine, or contraption, around a door that he knows Joe uses daily. Every day, Charlie adds a piece to his contraption. A sturdy shelf. Some rope. A pulley. A rock. Some twine. After many days have passed, Charlie is done, and heads home happy with his work.

Monday morning, Joe walks through the door, and is promptly smashed in the head with a 100 pound boulder and dies instantly.

Conversely, Amy also hates Joe (he miraculously recovered from the boulder incident

Amy walks up and blows Joes brains out with a .45.

In court, our friend Amy is obviously screwed. She will undoubtedly be spending 50 to life in San Quinton.

Charlie, however, feels he has an iron clad way out of any culpability for Joe’s death. He carefully lays out how none of the actions he took killed Joe. One day he put up a shelf. Another he attached a pulley to the doorframe. Another day he tied a rope to the rock. And so on, and clearly, none of the actions he did killed Joe. He then went on to explain how he is not responsible for the conditions present at the time Joe was killed. After all, Charlie did not create physics, or more specifically gravity. Nor did he create Force, which combined with the gravity and the Mass of the boulder to smash poor Joes skull. It is also not Charlies fault that he is observant enough to know that Joe walks through that door. Charlie didn’t make him walk there, his employer did.

So, did Charlie kill Joe?

1. Charlie killed Joe, and any court of law would rule as such.
2. I missed your original post where you made this analogy. What is this situation to be analogous to?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Passing Thru - great analogy!


This analogy is not as far-fetched as it sounds - there’s a case we studied in criminal law which involves someone who hit his victim over the head, thought the person was dead so dumped her in the river where she then drowned. So was it homicide?
When he dumped her in the river, he thought she was already dead, so there was not the mens rea for murder.

 

[St_Francis]

Ehhhhh, I don’t really know where to go with all of this. I think you are so far “off the trail” of discussing the distinctions between NFP and ABC, I do not think we can pull you back on.

Nothing you are talking about is related to why NFP is acceptable vice ABC. Nothing I am saying has anything to do with ABC being moral, yet you somehow keep going back to that point. Why, I have no idea.

No, it was more related to the difficulties in debating rather than discussing, from my thinking about a point that you made in one of your posts.

My beliefs have nothing to do with this. I have not mentioned them once. Your beliefs are fine, I have never said they were wrong. You said yourself:

“ABC is wrong because God condemned Onanism, and the reason that He condemned Onanism is that it frustrated the end of the sexual act, which is what abc does, so it too is wrong. That’s as far as I can go.”

Well, that is the problem right there. You seem to refuse to think past that point (which I accept, BTW), and discuss how this applies, or does not apply, to NFP. And why.

Well, that’s as far as I can go, so maybe I’m just dumb, but I see the difference, and I *have *admitted that I am unable to explain all this. I only got back into this thread because someone posted something else.

I know I sound like a jerk right now, and I am trying not too. I do not think you can take your logic past the first step, which you have repeated a dozen times. This is not an attempt to convince you that ABC is right, but I doubt you will get past that mindset.

Naw, you don’t sound like a jerk You’ve been very nice.

 

[St_Francis]

Passing Thru - great analogy!


This analogy is not as far-fetched as it sounds - there’s a case we studied in criminal law which involves someone who hit his victim over the head, thought the person was dead so dumped her in the river where she then drowned. So was it homicide?
When he dumped her in the river, he thought she was already dead, so there was not the mens rea for murder.

Charlie sets up a booby trap, which is illegal, and you are claiming that what he did was all right? No, it’s not. It’s immoral *and *illegal, so it’s pretty well-known to be *wrong. *

Not only are people required to not build booby traps, they are required to keep their property *safe. *Like if you have trees, you are supposed to maintain them so they don’t fall onto people. And if you do not maintain them, and they fall over on someone, your insurance will not cover it because you have been negligent.

So, no, the analogy doesn’t work at all.

 

[Doc_Keele]

StF - you’ve shown the analogy works brilliantly