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

[fix]

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?

Morally both are morally guilty. How is this related to your point though?

 

[St_Francis]

StF - you’ve shown the analogy works brilliantly

Remember, I have already admitted that I am dumb, but I don’t get it.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Remember, I have already admitted that I am dumb, but I don’t get it.

Of course you’re not dumb

Pasing Thru can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the point of his analogy (or it could even be called a thought experiment, and a very good one too) is to demonstrate that someone’s actions need to be viewed as a whole. The analogy is with NFP, where the couple’s actions over the month need to be taken as a whole, rather than looking at one episode of intercourse. But I could be wrong.

 

[PassingThru]

Morally both are morally guilty. How is this related to your point though?

Hmmmm, two people have now asked this, so maybe it is not as clear as it should be? I thought it was pretty plain, but I guess I need to elaborate.

So first, murder being right or wrong is not the point. It is merely an “end” for the purpose of the analogy. Using some of the same principals we have discussed, my attempt was to show in both cases we have:

1. Intent - eliminate Joe
2. Means - Amys direct method, Charlies indirect method,
3. End - Joe eliminated

Again, just ignore the obvious immorality of murder. It just the “end” of the scenario.

Amys method is ABC:

It is “unnatural”, and most definitely a direct act. No one questions she is responsible for the end.

Charlie in this case is NFP:

It was indirect. He didn’t directly produce the “end” in this case. The was no “act” that he physically had a hand in. He was at home. Just as in NFP, you don’t actually have the sex that produces, or really, doesn’t product, a child. You abstain for that period of time (Charlie at home).

He took steps that lead to Joe’s death, but each step he took is benign. Nothing he did along the way actually killed Joe. This is also true of NFP. None of the charting, measuring, observing, and ultimately sex, are wrong by themselves. They are just the steps that lead to the end (no kids, or removal of procreation from sex).

Charlie is not responsible for knowing Joe walks through that door. It is merely an observation. In NFP, it is not the couple that creates egg heading down the shoot every month, you merely observe it, and use it to your advantage, just as Charlie did.

In its own way, it is natural. All of the “forces” involved are occurring outside of Charlies influence. Things like the physics that cause it to work, Joe walking through the door, his intelligence and observation. Just as in NFP, everything is natural and happening without your influence. You merely take advantage of these occurrences in a specific way to meet a desired outcome. (Again I stress, just ignore the “murder” part, its irrelevant, it is only there to represent the “end” of the scenario, and common to both).

So, my question is how do we separate the two (means and end) in NFP, but quite obviously do not in the case of Charlie? The mere fact that NFP by definition mingles the two together far more than ABC does can not be enough on its own, can it?

Amy’s example is pretty clear. Intent - Kill Joe, Means - Gun, End - Joe Dead. Charlie is more complicated when you break down his Means over time, and you have to establish that all his individual steps lead to the same eventual End. But we have no problem doing this (connecting the Means more directly to the End).

Does that make sense?

 

[St_Francis]

Doc Keele, Passing Through,
One of the actions he took was immoral, when he moved the rock to a precarious position, so it doesn’t work.

 

[fix]

Hmmmm, two people have now asked this, so maybe it is not as clear as it should be? I thought it was pretty plain, but I guess I need to elaborate.

So first, murder being right or wrong is not the point. It is merely an “end” for the purpose of the analogy. Using some of the same principals we have discussed, my attempt was to show in both cases we have:

1. Intent - eliminate Joe
2. Means - Amys direct method, Charlies indirect method,
3. End - Joe eliminated

You cannot use murder as an example and then say ignore that aspect. The means make no difference as the action is intrinsically evil. The analogy fails from the premise.

Again, just ignore the obvious immorality of murder. It just the “end” of the scenario.

Charlie in this case is NFP:

It was indirect. He didn’t directly produce the “end” in this case. The was no “act” that he physically had a hand in. He was at home. Just as in NFP, you don’t actually have the sex that produces, or really, doesn’t product, a child. You abstain for that period of time (Charlie at home).

He took steps that lead to Joe’s death, but each step he took is benign. Nothing he did along the way actually killed Joe. This is also true of NFP. None of the charting, measuring, observing, and ultimately sex, are wrong by themselves. They are just the steps that lead to the end (no kids, or removal of procreation from sex).

Charlie is not responsible for knowing Joe walks through that door. It is merely an observation. In NFP, it is not the couple that creates egg heading down the shoot every month, you merely observe it, and use it to your advantage, just as Charlie did.

In its own way, it is natural. All of the “forces” involved are occurring outside of Charlies influence. Things like the physics that cause it to work, Joe walking through the door, his intelligence and observation. Just as in NFP, everything is natural and happening without your influence. You merely take advantage of these occurrences in a specific way to meet a desired outcome. (Again I stress, just ignore the “murder” part, its irrelevant, it is only there to represent the “end” of the scenario, and common to both).

So, my question is how do we separate the two (means and end) in NFP, but quite obviously do not in the case of Charlie? The mere fact that NFP by definition mingles the two together far more than ABC does can not be enough on its own, can it?

Amy’s example is pretty clear. Intent - Kill Joe, Means - Gun, End - Joe Dead. Charlie is more complicated when you break down his Means over time, and you have to establish that all his individual steps lead to the same eventual End. But we have no problem doing this (connecting the Means more directly to the End).

Does that make sense?

Sorry, but it does not apply.He intended to kill. The intent of NFP and contraception may be good or evil. That depends of each case.

The means are very different as has been explained too many times. If the means of abstaining are evil then having lunch instead of sex is evil, or going to work, or any other thing that one does while not engaging in the act.

 

[PassingThru]

Doc Keele, Passing Through,
One of the actions he took was immoral, when he moved the rock to a precarious position, so it doesn’t work.

Is it?

I have an industrial compressor on a shelf in my garage (up high). Is that immoral?

And I didn’t say precarious, let alone you are still missing the point. Why are we avoiding the point of the discussion through details?

 

[PassingThru]

You cannot use murder as an example and then say ignore that aspect. The means make no difference as the action is intrinsically evil. The analogy fails from the premise.

Sorry, but it does not apply.He intended to kill. The intent of NFP and contraception may be good or evil. That depends of each case.

The means are very different as has been explained too many times. If the means of abstaining are evil then having lunch instead of sex is evil, or going to work, or any other thing that one does while not engaging in the act.

Holy cow. This is like failing analogy 101 here.

FINE. There is no longer a rock on a shelf. It is a cup made of very soft foam full of magic pixie dust for all I care. Everything else happens just as I laid out with respect to Charlie.

Amy didn’t shoot Joe, instead she walked up and dumped the magic pixie dust over his head.

You can now amend the scenario to be looking for the answer with respect to “Did Charlie cause the magic pixie dust to fall on Joes head”, with all the same questions regarding the relationship between his steps and the result.

I am starting to think no one wants to actually discuss these questions and just wants to be difficult out of spite.

 

[fix]

Holy cow. This is like failing analogy 101 here.

FINE. There is no longer a rock on a shelf. It is a cup made of very soft foam full of magic pixie dust for all I care. Everything else happens just as I laid out with respect to Charlie.

Amy didn’t shoot Joe, instead she walked up and dumped the magic pixie dust over his head.

You can now amend the scenario to be looking for the answer with respect to “Did Charlie cause the magic pixie dust to fall on Joes head”, with all the same questions regarding the relationship between his steps and the result.

I am starting to think no one wants to actually discuss these questions and just wants to be difficult out of spite.

I am not being rude, I just cannot follow your rationale. The means have an embedded intent that is evil. The means of contraception intend to separate the two aspects of the act. The means of NFP have no such embedded intent. In fact, they are morally neutral as no alteration to the act takes place.

 

[PassingThru]

I am not being rude, I just cannot follow your rationale. The means have an embedded intent that is evil. The means of contraception intend to separate the two aspects of the act. The means of NFP have no such embedded intent. In fact, they are morally neutral as no alteration to the act takes place.

OK. You do not understand the analogy. I used this to give the conversation a frame of reference to further the discussion. This line: “The means of NFP have no such embedded intent. In fact, they are morally neutral as no alteration to the act takes place.” drives home you are missing the point. I will wait to see if anyone else can draw any distinctions.

I know I sound short, and I know you are not trying to be rude. But if you don’t understand the analogy, don’t just say “it doesn’t work”. Important distinction: It doesn’t mean I am right, it only means you are not aware of the intent. I think if you re-read it carefully, you might pick it up. I know Doc did, and I hope others do as well.

(BTW, it works much better with “dead Joe”, due to how strong the message is on both sides. And I hope you can figure out why it doesn’t matter if we kill Joe or sprinkle him with Pixie Dust)

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc Keele, Passing Through,
One of the actions he took was immoral, when he moved the rock to a precarious position, so it doesn’t work.

You’re missing the point completely
The analogy does not have to be an exact match, otherwise it would not be an analogy, would it?

 

[St_Francis]

Is it?

I have an industrial compressor on a shelf in my garage (up high). Is that immoral?

And I didn’t say precarious, let alone you are still missing the point. Why are we avoiding the point of the discussion through details?

Patience, Passing, patience.

You wrote: **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.**

So, first we have a contraption… then we have someone walking through a door being killed by the contraption. The rock would have to be precariously placed in order to come loose to kill Joe, because otherwise the rock would have stayed in place and not killed him.

In short, you cannot make a “machine or contraption” which will kill someone who walks through the door without doing something wrong. If your intention is to kill someone with it, then you do the mis-placement on purpose, and there would be your wrong action.

 

[PassingThru]

Patience, Passing, patience.

You wrote: **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.**

So, first we have a contraption… then we have someone walking through a door being killed by the contraption. The rock would have to be precariously placed in order to come loose to kill Joe, because otherwise the rock would have stayed in place and not killed him.

In short, you cannot make a “machine or contraption” which will kill someone who walks through the door without doing something wrong. If your intention is to kill someone with it, then you do the mis-placement on purpose, and there would be your wrong action.

Read some of my posts from when I posted this. I do not want to continue this line of conversation as it is totally off base. I do hope someone can help steer this along.

You are missing the point so incredibly badly it is painful for me to type these responses. (Sorry again)

 

[PassingThru]

You’re missing the point completely
The analogy does not have to be an exact match, otherwise it would not be an analogy, would it?

By definition, analogy’s don’t have to match at all, only the principal. We are missing the principal so incredibility people think this is about murdering Joe. My head hurts…

 

[Doc_Keele]

Unfortunately Passing Thru, if you don’t know how to approach this sort of thing it just goes over the top of your head. Concrete thinking.

 

[Abu]

Back to basics:

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Jan 26, 2005. EWTN: **
It is helpful to distinguish between objective and subjective contraception. A couple that has sexual relations only during the infertile times in order to avoid pregnancy does not objectively contracept for the simple reason that there is nothing there to contracept. However, a couple that does this for less than serious reasons subjectively contracepts. In other words, their intention is contraceptive. This would be an abuse of NFP and is as seriously wrong as objectively contracepting.

 

[PassingThru]

Back to basics:

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on Jan 26, 2005. EWTN: **
It is helpful to distinguish between objective and subjective contraception. A couple that has sexual relations only during the infertile times in order to avoid pregnancy does not objectively contracept for the simple reason that there is nothing there to contracept. However, a couple that does this for less than serious reasons subjectively contracepts. In other words, their intention is contraceptive. This would be an abuse of NFP and is as seriously wrong as objectively contracepting.

No disagreements, and I doubt others would either. I think we are all under the assumption that reasons are just. Without this assumption, the entire discussion falls flat.

 

[Vico]

…Using some of the same principals we have discussed, my attempt was to show in both cases we have:

1. Intent - eliminate Joe
2. Means - Amys direct method, Charlies indirect method,
3. End - Joe eliminated

Again, just ignore the obvious immorality of murder. It just the “end” of the scenario…

Amys method is ABC: It is “unnatural”, and most definitely a direct act. No one questions she is responsible for the end.

Charlie in this case is NFP: It was indirect. … He took steps that lead to Joe’s death, but each step he took is benign. …

So, my question is how do we separate the two (means and end) in NFP, but quite obviously do not in the case of Charlie?

The mere fact that NFP by definition mingles the two together far more than ABC does can not be enough on its own, can it? …

Amy and Charlie both killed Joe. The means and end are not separate in either case.

Applied to NFP or ABC: NFP is not mingled together more than ABC, rather there are two violations with ABC and one with NFP.

The first law violated is the same for both, not intending a fruitful marriage (the duty of marriage). The second law, violated only by ABC, is that it is intrinsically against the nature of the conjugal act itself. (The conjugal act occurs during a time that is not naturally infertile.)

 

[Vico]

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:

I hope you do provide the paper or a reference to it.

The crux of the Catholic objection to ABC over NFP is that to show our respect to God as the master of the master of the sources of life *, we must not alter the conjugal act itself, which is not altered by abstaining, but is altered by use of technology to render a naturally fertile period infertile.

• for example as expressed in HV 13.

So if there is a way for a zygote to occur and not implant, during the sterile periods used with NFP, it would still be natural and so not disrespectful to God as the master of the sources of life.

 

[Abu]

Clear cut:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006, EWTN:
**If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, **that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization. [My emphasis].