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

[Doc_Keele]

Hello All, May I give an analogy?

Regarding NFP, Here is an analogy. In the analogy, The Marital Act = dinner party. Fertility = Uncle Joe.

Analogy 1: The NFP couple, avoiding conception, .

Husband: We are going to have a dinner party. Do you know if Uncle Joe will make it?
Wife: No, haven’t you heard, Uncle Joe is in Hawaii, he won’t be able to come/
Husband: Well can we still have the party?
Wife: Sure. Uncle Joe won’t mind.

Analogy 2: The NFP couple, also avoiding conception.

Husband: Are we going to have a dinner party?
Wife: Oh, didn’t you know, Uncle Joe is visiting.
Husband: Oh right. You know this month is really difficult to entertain Uncle Joe, with the economy, we just can’t afford it. do you think he’ll mind a raincheck on dinner?
Wife: You know Uncle Joe is very understanding.

Analogy 3: Couple using Contraceptives.

Husband: Regarding the dinner party…
Wife: Yeah, the dinner party, Uncle Joe is totally not invited. I totallly do not want to see uncle Joe. i can’t even enjoy dinner thinking about uncle Joe
Husband: Well what if he’s around?
Wife: Well, I locked the doors, and caller ID is on, so Uncle Joe cannot show up.
Husband: OK. let’s eat.

Good thought-provoking posts:thumbsup:

 

[XinMinny]

Quote:
Originally Posted by XinMinny

ABC - Sinful (evil) on the basis of preventing pregnancy over long periods of time, which violates the premise that marriages should create offspring.

No, this is not why abc is considered evil. ABC seperates the unitive and procreative (as defined by the church, which is different than most anyone’s understanding of the term) from the marital embrace. That is why the church teaches it is evil.

Rico - Perhaps I misunderstand. I have been working on the understanding that ABC if used continually is defined by the Church as 2 sins.

1. Alteration of marital act and thus separating the procreative and unitive aspects when the couple is together.
2. Removing from the marriage any possibility of children, which is one purpose (and requirement - sorry if I have the wrong term here) of the marriage in the first place.

What I was trying to say is that PassingThru doesn’t have a question about #2 above. In fact, no one here seems to have a question about #2 above. All are in agreement that ABC if used continually is a sin by #2 above.

The question from PT (again) is: Specifically what kind of alteration in the act of marital union is it that makes ABC a sin according to #1 above. Specifically what characteristic is it that makes ABC a sin in the act of union that is not present in NFP.

For example: One could say (barrier method): “There is a barrier between him and her. This is not natural - it is an alteration. That makes it a sin.” Of course, this would not apply to chemical use, so this is not a logically valid argument.
One could say, “She is taking drugs, so her body is not functioning in the natural way.” However, here, PT will say, “If she is taking drugs, in the day the couple is together, her body is not fertile. If the couple is using NFP, in the day the couple is together, her body is not fertile. So, this is the same situation, and the reason given does not imply that one is sinful and the other is not.”

Does that help the discussion any?

Minny

 

[fix]

Fix,
I believe that you are misunderstanding PassingThru. PT has a simple question:
How does ABC alter the act in a way the NFP does not?

And he has been given simple direct answers. With contraception one engages in the act and physically, and morally, alters it by suppressing fertility. Would you deny that say using a condom is suppressing fertility?

When a NFP couple engages in the act how is the act changed? If they engage at a time during the cycle that conception is unlikely in what way has the act been altered?

If you read what the Church has actually said She says:* that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.*

Logically, PT is saying that it does not work to say “Well, ABC is not natural.” It does not work, because NFP is actually intellectual manipulation of nature. So, PT is saying that you or the Church or whoever can define ABC as unnatural and NFP as natural. Then it is a matter of faith. PT is OK with that. PT is merely saying that to do so is a matter of definition, not logic.

But, nature is not manipulated. God ordered the cycle for a reason. The couple uses that knowledge. Also, I would not separate faith from reason. I agree definitions matter, but that is part of logic not separate from it.

By natural the Church is referring to the natural moral law that is right reason.

BTW, how would you determine which means are moral and which are not?

 

[hellopeople]

Hello All, May I give an analogy?

Regarding NFP, Here is an analogy. In the analogy, The Marital Act = dinner party. Fertility = Uncle Joe.

Analogy 1: The NFP couple, avoiding conception, .

Husband: We are going to have a dinner party. Do you know if Uncle Joe will make it?
Wife: No, haven’t you heard, Uncle Joe is in Hawaii, he won’t be able to come/
Husband: Well can we still have the party?
Wife: Sure. Uncle Joe won’t mind.

Analogy 2: The NFP couple, also avoiding conception.

Husband: Are we going to have a dinner party?
Wife: Oh, didn’t you know, Uncle Joe is visiting.
Husband: Oh right. You know this month is really difficult to entertain Uncle Joe, with the economy, we just can’t afford it. do you think he’ll mind a raincheck on dinner?
Wife: You know Uncle Joe is very understanding.

Analogy 3: Couple using Contraceptives.

Husband: Regarding the dinner party…
Wife: Yeah, the dinner party, Uncle Joe is totally not invited. I totallly do not want to see uncle Joe. i can’t even enjoy dinner thinking about uncle Joe
Husband: Well what if he’s around?
Wife: Well, I locked the doors, and caller ID is on, so Uncle Joe cannot show up.
Husband: OK. let’s eat.

I know for a fact that many of the people using NFP are just as scared as getting pregnant as those that are using contraceptives.

 

[PassingThru]

You seem to misunderstand moral theology. Just because you draw an artificial distinction between “indirect and direct” means does not change the moral culpability. That is why your analogy does not apply.

You intend to kill a person. You do so by setting up a situation where it will occur.

You intend to kill. You use the means necessary to kill. You do kill.

NFP desires to space children, they use a means that does not alter the act. They do not sin.

I started a long response, but I will shorten it.

You still seem stuck on the morality of the end, in this case murder. Please follow my question from earlier. Change the end to my pixie dust example, as that will give you a positive, or at least neutral end.

Under this scenario, explain how we all agree Charlie is still responsible for dumping Pixie Dust on Joe even though nothing he did directly resulted in Pixie Dust being dumped on Joe.

 

[PassingThru]

It is very simple. With NFP the couple engages in the act unaltered. The act is ordered toward life as designed by God .Any information gathered regarding the biological processes is used to space children for legitimate reasons. The act is not disordered in anyway.

With contraception they couple may have the same intent to space children. They also intend, and do, alter the act. It is a disordered act.

I am sure it has been mentioned here but if you need cash you may get a legitimate job or rob a bank. Either way you may legitimately need cash, but one way is very immoral and one is not.

Yes. We have agreed countless times NFP does not alter the act. Can a series of morally acceptable acts lead to a morally unacceptable end? Yes or No?

 

[XinMinny]

And he has been given simple direct answers. With contraception one engages in the act and physically, and morally, alters it by suppressing fertility. Would you deny that say using a condom is suppressing fertility?

It is not my discussion. It is PT’s. I am trying to help it along. I don’t believe he would deny that using a barrier is an unnatural act. But, I think he is saying that in the case of chemical/medicinal ABC, there is no change in the act itself. It is the same act as NFP.

When a NFP couple engages in the act how is the act changed? If they engage at a time during the cycle that conception is unlikely in what way has the act been altered?

If you read what the Church has actually said She says:* that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.*

PT understands this (at least in the words of it.) What PT does not understand is the logic by which the Church concludes that ABC severs the act from its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life and NFP does not. In both case, when the act is carried out, the couple arranged that there is a miniscule chance of conception.

But, nature is not manipulated. God ordered the cycle for a reason. The couple uses that knowledge. Also, I would not separate faith from reason. I agree definitions matter, but that is part of logic not separate from it.

By natural the Church is referring to the natural moral law that is right reason.

BTW, how would you determine which means are moral and which are not?

I think you are saying that the whole issue really comes down to a matter of faith. PT is OK with that definition. (at least I think he/she is). The quibble here is not that there needs to be a logical description. Rather, if there is, what is it.

Minny

 

[PassingThru]

But in the contracepting scenario, Uncle Joe is treated rudely. I’m Italian-American, and treating Uncle Joe in such a bluntly rude fashion might mean families don’t speak for years.

Also, say Uncle Joe changes his plans and comes over? The NFP couple doesn’t kick him out.

And I had three analogies: Don’t forget, Uncle Joe comes over once a month pretty steady. Sometimes the couple can give him dinner. Sometimes they can only offer an evening of playing cards.

This is a prime example of the kind of avoidance of the issue that makes me go crazy. You have intentionally misrepresented NFP as an individual, innocuous, decision. This is not what NFP is. At all.

Rico as correctly added information to make it more reflective of what NFP is, but it is rejected. This is what many others are doing as well. It is clear why.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I know for a fact that many of the people using NFP are just as scared as getting pregnant as those that are using contraceptives.

I mentioned fear somewhere?

 

[hellopeople]

I mentioned fear somewhere?

If that isn’t the case then I don’t understand the analogy at all. Both couples don’t want a baby. One couple uses one way, another couple uses another.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

If that isn’t the case then I don’t understand the analogy at all. Both couples don’t want a baby. One couple uses one way, another couple uses another.

But not desiring the child is not a bad thing per se.

How one goes about it could be moral or immoral.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This is a prime example of the kind of avoidance of the issue that makes me go crazy. You have intentionally misrepresented NFP as an individual, innocuous, decision. This is not what NFP is. At all.

Rico as correctly added information to make it more reflective of what NFP is, but it is rejected. This is what many others are doing as well. It is clear why.

Kindly, what was misrepresented? I did not misrepresent anything. What is NFP in your opinion?

 

[hellopeople]

But not desiring the child is not a bad thing per se.

How one goes about it could be moral or immoral.

I disagree though. It changes the marital act, but that doesn’t make it immoral IMO.

Someone on the pill doesn’t really change the marital act. Really it only changes the marital act when the girl would be ovulating…so the rest of the month while she is on birth control it is OK?

Both parties are looking for the exact same end: have sex and not get a baby…but one does it one way and one does it the other way. I am happy that these things do not concern me, because it can’t possibly concern God…at least in my opinion.

 

[XinMinny]

I disagree though. It changes the marital act, but that doesn’t make it immoral IMO.

Someone on the pill doesn’t really change the marital act. Really it only changes the marital act when the girl would be ovulating…so the rest of the month while she is on birth control it is OK?

Both parties are looking for the exact same end: have sex and not get a baby…but one does it one way and one does it the other way. I am happy that these things do not concern me, because it can’t possibly concern God…at least in my opinion.

Hellopeople,
You have hit on exactly the problem being discussed. It seems the Church has given forth the truth (by its own proclamation), that ABC does change the marital act every time it is used (when she is ovulating, when she is not - it doesn’t matter). Thus, it is sinful. However, the Church has also given forth is truth that NFP does not alter the act ever, and thus it is only sinful if used continually, for years and years, to prevent any further children.

This is the matter for discussion. Namely, what is the difference between the act with use of ABC, or with NFP that makes one sinful and one not.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

Minny

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I disagree though. It changes the marital act, but that doesn’t make it immoral IMO.

Someone on the pill doesn’t really change the marital act. Really it only changes the marital act when the girl would be ovulating…so the rest of the month while she is on birth control it is OK?

Both parties are looking for the exact same end: have sex and not get a baby…but one does it one way and one does it the other way. I am happy that these things do not concern me, because it can’t possibly concern God…at least in my opinion.

Sure she is. She is changing her body so she can be intimate any day while avoiding pregancy.

The nfp couple wants to avoid pregnancy,they need to avoid sex. A woman can only conceive a few days a month. NFP tells you when that is…it doesn’t make the fertile days go away.

As in my Uncle Joe anaology. He comes over once a month. The nfp couple chooses to have a dinner party while he’s there or not.

They don’t kick him out.

 

[PassingThru]

It is not my discussion. It is PT’s. I am trying to help it along. I don’t believe he would deny that using a barrier is an unnatural act. But, I think he is saying that in the case of chemical/medicinal ABC, there is no change in the act itself. It is the same act as NFP.

PT understands this (at least in the words of it.) What PT does not understand is the logic by which the Church concludes that ABC severs the act from its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life and NFP does not. In both case, when the act is carried out, the couple arranged that there is a miniscule chance of conception.

I think you are saying that the whole issue really comes down to a matter of faith. PT is OK with that definition. (at least I think he/she is). The quibble here is not that there needs to be a logical description. Rather, if there is, what is it.

Minny

Minny, you are a sharp sharp person.

Your last paragraph is spot on.

Your first is pretty close. I have never made any case for ABC. Period. People are so stuck on defending the Churches stance on ABC I do not think they can see that I am NOT defending ABC. Frustrating. I am not making the case that sex with ABC is the same. I am accepting the assumption that ABC is totally wrong. I always have. Even though everyone looks past it.

I also accept that each individual act of sex using NFP is absolutely moral. My contention is that that is not a defense that the end or result is necessarily moral. No one will look at this, and instead runs back to the tired line of “ABC is wrong, each act of NFP is moral.” I HAVE NEVER DISAGREED WITH THIS.

Hence my analogy. None of the individual acts by Charlie was wrong. None of them. Yet we know he is responsible for the end, and have no problems accepting this. The fact that each act was benign is irrelevant. And we all, rightfully, accept this. I am asking why we do not apply this same, basic, inherent logic that we use for all other situations to NFP. What is it about NFP that is different?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hellopeople,
You have hit on exactly the problem being discussed. It seems the Church has given forth the truth (by its own proclamation), that ABC does change the marital act every time it is used (when she is ovulating, when she is not - it doesn’t matter). Thus, it is sinful. However, the Church has also given forth is truth that NFP does not alter the act ever, and thus it is only sinful if used continually, for years and years, to prevent any further children.This is the matter for discussion. Namely, what is the difference between the act with use of ABC, or with NFP that makes one sinful and one not.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

Minny

That is not exactly true. A couple could have grave reasons to avoid perpetually. NFP could be used perpetually.

 

[PassingThru]

Kindly, what was misrepresented? I did not misrepresent anything. What is NFP in your opinion?

I answered in my reply. I said “You have intentionally misrepresented NFP as an individual, innocuous, decision. This is not what NFP is. At all.”

NFP is a specific, scientific process employed to avoid children with the highest probability of success.

It is not a one time, random decision.

I strongly react to this, as this avoids looking at NFP as a system, and this mindset is used as an avoidance technique to deflect any scrutiny past NFP as one instance of unaltered sex.

And the off chance of getting pregnant is not a distinguishing characteristic of either NFP or ABC.

 

[hellopeople]

Sure she is. She is changing her body so she can be intimate any day while avoiding pregancy.

The nfp couple wants to avoid pregnancy,they need to avoid sex. A woman can only conceive a few days a month. NFP tells you when that is…it doesn’t make the fertile days go away.

As in my Uncle Joe anaology. He comes over once a month. The nfp couple chooses to have a dinner party while he’s there or not.

They don’t kick him out.

Maybe we should ask the egg if it minds not showing up. So are you saying the act of abstaining for a few days makes it ok?

 

[PassingThru]

Oh, Mary Gail, I am sorry I am wording so harshly. It is not your fault. It is my frustration from elsewhere coming through my keyboard.