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

[hellopeople]

So you aren’t supposed to use NFP for long periods of time to avoid kids? So you should just keep having kids if you have the means? My grandfather was one of 16…should I try to emulate his parents? Is that what the church would want? How many years between kids is moral and how many is not?

 

[XinMinny]

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?

PT - Sorry to flog a dying horse. I am trying to really grasp what you are saying here. Are you saying:

1)ABC is wrong in the day of the act and in the sense of preventing further children (both sins as we have discussed before) ?

2)Each act in the use of NFP is moral.

3)Use of NFP without grave reason (thanks for the clarification Mary Gail) for extended periods is also immoral.

No quibble with any of that.

Now,
4) ABC is immoral in use for spacing, because it is always immoral.

1. Why is not NFP as a system used for spacing also considered immoral, because it is specifically designed to prevent pregnancy just as using ABC in this case in immoral. What is the difference in this case?

Is that the question?

Sorry again for flogging a dying horse. I enjoy this discussion for the logical side of it.

Minny

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

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.

I practice nfp. I know when I am fertile. When I am with my husband we realize if I am fertile, then decide whether trying to conceive is prudent or not. If it is not prudent we avoid .

I used the Pill in the past. Why? So I could never avoid and never be fertile. We used condoms too, why? So when I was fertile we would not need to avoid.

We shouldn’t have anymore children. Yet we need to decide each month if abstaining is actually worth not having more children.

Is that clearer?

 

[hellopeople]

In my opinion, having kids is a choice. If one does not want to have kids, but wants to show their love for their partner, I don’t think that it should be a sin. If a couple only wants to have 1, 2, or 3 kids or something like that, they should be able to do that without feeling guilty about not having more kids. I mean, do you guys think that the families in church that have only 1 or 2 kids are having any less sex than the family with 7 kids? Is that sex sinful for the family with only 1 or 2 kids?

At what point does NFP become wrong? How many years of doing it? What is the minimum amount of kids that you should have? How many years apart should these kids be for it to not be a sin…this are things that should all have specific answers if you are going to say that it is a sin to use NFP for too long.

 

[Vico]

This is an amazingly frustrating thread. It amazes me how much people can avoid a topic to make a point.

For the love of God, we get it. (Sorry)

I really thought we were making progress on getting to the meat of just about the only differentiating feature separating NFP and ABC. I have yet to hear how my analogy does not apply in a similar fashion to NFP.

Sorry for the brashness.

You asked the question and I answered. You do not even acknowledge that I agree that both ABC and NFP violate a common principle. You said " It amazes me how much people can avoid a topic to make a point." I will say that you have done so yourself.

Frankly, I am suprised that upon directly answering and addressing your questions, you are unable to express how what I say does not relate to the real world or other people (rather you say it is Catholic). Are you then saying that your question does not relate to the real world or other people then? I have though about this response so it is not brashness, in all sincerity I do not how it does not answer your question. You can show your true sorrow by giving a thoughtful reply.

 

[PassingThru]

You asked the question and I answered. You do not even acknowledge that I agree that both ABC and NFP violate a common principle. You said " It amazes me how much people can avoid a topic to make a point." I will say that you have done so yourself.

Frankly, I am suprised that upon directly answering and addressing your questions, you are unable to express how what I say does not relate to the real world or other people (rather you say it is Catholic). Are you then saying that your question does not relate to the real world or other people then? I have though about this response so it is not brashness, in all sincerity I do not how it does not answer your question. You can show your true sorrow by giving a thoughtful reply.

In general, what I feel your responses reflect (sometimes) is something like this.

I think Hondas are an overall more reliable car. I give a list of facts, my interpretation, and why I think this position makes sense. I want to hear why my logic is good, or where my logic failed. With some reasoning that we all can sit down and discuss.

Your response would be “Consumer Reports said Toyotas are better”

Well, great. I certainly can’t say you are wrong. You probably are right. But it doesn’t add anything to the discussion.

I don’t even remember what your comment was on. I am sure it was something about Church teaching on ABC. Or how assuming ABC is wrong, my premise doesn’t matter. I am sure it would be nothing I could disagree with, as your knowledge in such areas is an order of magnitude above mine.

I just want you to step down into our world and discuss. You are obviously a very smart man.

(This is only for Vico, no new discussions on Toyotas or Hondas please!!!)

 

[fix]

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.

If he set up the situation for the dust to fall on Joe then he is responsible. Did the stuff get set up by itself? What has this to do with acts that are intrinsically evil?

 

[fix]

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?

That is not specific enough to give a yes or no answer.

If you want Catholic reasoning we start with the CCC:

A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

 

[fix]

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.

Medication does not alter fertility?

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.

Chance of conception is not the criteria. There could be a couple both 90 years old and contraception would still be illicit.

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

No, I am saying it is right reason. Faith may help see reality more clearly.

 

[PassingThru]

That is not specific enough to give a yes or no answer.

If you want Catholic reasoning we start with the CCC:

A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

So it would logically follow then that if the end of NFP is not morally acceptable, then the morality of each individual act is irrelevant, yes?

 

[davidv]

In my opinion, having kids is a choice.

And, like every other choice we make, the choice is either moral, immoral or morally neutral.

If one does not want to have kids, but wants to show their love for their partner,

Sex is not the only way, nor even the best way, to express your love.

I don’t think that it should be a sin.

You can think that all you want, but you would still be wrong.

If a couple only wants to have 1, 2, or 3 kids or something like that, they should be able to do that without feeling guilty about not having more kids.

If they don’t have a valid and serious reason, they should feel guilty for sinning.

I mean, do you guys think that the families in church that have only 1 or 2 kids are having any less sex than the family with 7 kids?

I don’t know and it none of my busines to know.

Is that sex sinful for the family with only 1 or 2 kids?

Only if done contraceptively.

At what point does NFP become wrong?

When the intent is immoral.

How many years of doing it?

Does not matter, unless the duration is due to an immoral intent.

What is the minimum amount of kids that you should have?

It is not specified.

How many years apart should these kids be for it to not be a sin…this are things that should all have specific answers if you are going to say that it is a sin to use NFP for too long.

Depends on the morality of the intent.

 

[XinMinny]

Medication does not alter fertility?

Medication alters fertility. Yes. It does not, however, alter the act itself. In both cases, we have a couple uniting with no ovum available for conception. In the hour of the union, it matters not to the couple if that condition is a result of the medication, or the date they have chosen for their union. It is the same physical act. (Keep in mind here that I am following PT’s logic. It is not my horse. I am trying instead to pin the discussion down so that PT can get some satisfaction from the answers.)

Chance of conception is not the criteria. There could be a couple both 90 years old and contraception would still be illicit.

PT has no problem with this idea. I did not mean any suggestion that probability was a criterion. Rather, I meant to explain that to some people (PT included) the situation looks identical in the case of NFP and ABC. So, the question, when the system of NFP is used to delay or space the children, why does the Church say that is OK?

I am glad you see it that way.

Minny

 

[XinMinny]

I have been trying to think of a different way to phrase the questions that PassingThru has.

How about this:

Situation A) Couple uses ABC temporarily to space the children due to health, financial concerns, etc. Really, this is saying: The intellect of people has learned how to arrange female fertility so there is little chance of conception, using (for example) medicine. We do not want another child right now. We will take advantage of the intellect of men to postpone our next pregnancy.

Situation B) Couple uses NFP temporarily to space their children due to health, financial concerns, etc. Really, this is saying: The intellect of people has learned how to arrange female fertility so there is little chance of conception, using scientific gathering of data about her cycle. We do not want another child right now. We will take advantage of the intellect of men to postpone our next pregnancy.

Those are the 2 situations. Now, PassingThru asks: “If we assume that the couple in situation A is carrying out a sinful act (and we do assume that), why do we not assume the couple in situation B is also carrying our a sinful act?” And, to further explain that question: The motives are the same. The actual, physical act is the same (union with no ovum available for conception). The only thing that is different is that before union takes place one couple is using thermometers, charts, etc and the other couple is using a drug company’s lab. That difference took place a few days earlier. So, what is the difference in the time of the union?

Some possible answers: “It is wrong to use science to alter her fertility?” Someone could say, “They are both using science. That is the point of NFP also. It is a different science.”

Or, “ABC separates the procreative and unitive aspects…” In this case, please describe the separation of the procreative and unitive aspects that are different in the 2 cases above. By which we mean, “Please identify the procreative aspect and the unitive aspect in direct terms so we can understand them. And then, tell us what is different about the 2 cases.”

And so on. I am sure there is an answer. I really am. I would like to hear it. Why is one OK, and the other not?

Or, maybe the answer is “You can’t understand unless you believe the Church.” That is fine as an answer, but please just tell us.

Thanks again,
I an beginning to see where PassingThru is coming from.

Minny

 

[XinMinny]

No, I am saying it is right reason. Faith may help see reality more clearly.

Fix,
I believe there may the seed of the answer in this statement. Thank you for using this expression twice now, as it has finally grabbed my attention.

I was apparently a poorly catechized Catholic. I am not familiar exactly with what is meant by ‘right reason.’ Could you please explain that concept as a strong Catholic sees it?

Thanks a whole bunch.

Minny

 

[hellopeople]

And, like every other choice we make, the choice is either moral, immoral or morally neutral.

Sex is not the only way, nor even the best way, to express your love.

You can think that all you want, but you would still be wrong.

If they don’t have a valid and serious reason, they should feel guilty for sinning.

I don’t know and it none of my busines to know.

Only if done contraceptively.

When the intent is immoral.

Does not matter, unless the duration is due to an immoral intent.

It is not specified.

Depends on the morality of the intent.

What is moral intent and what is immoral intent?

 

[PassingThru]

Fix,
I believe there may the seed of the answer in this statement. Thank you for using this expression twice now, as it has finally grabbed my attention.

I was apparently a poorly catechized Catholic. I am not familiar exactly with what is meant by ‘right reason.’ Could you please explain that concept as a strong Catholic sees it?

Thanks a whole bunch.

Minny

You are spot on with my earlier point concerning this. This quote sums it up:

“I am saying it is right reason. Faith may help see reality more clearly.”

I have been rejecting this reason for some time. It is not that I disagree with the outcome of faith. I can not do such a thing. I reject using a statement of faith as backing a logical assertion.

The reasons why should be clear enough. I could support ABC, or, reject NFP, and back that with a statement of faith. If you read all my posts on this topic, you will find no such assertion that ties back to a simple statement of faith. The conversation would then look something like this.

ABC is wrong. It is right reason “or something similar”
NFP is wrong. It is right reason.

And that would end it.

To clarify, that does not mean I am taking all religion or morals out of the equation. Only backing a specific belief in question with an open appeal to religions authority.

 

[mark_a]

I have been trying to think of a different way to phrase the questions that PassingThru has.

How about this:

Situation A) Couple uses ABC temporarily to space the children due to health, financial concerns, etc. Really, this is saying: The intellect of people has learned how to arrange female fertility so there is little chance of conception, using (for example) medicine. We do not want another child right now. We will take advantage of the intellect of men to postpone our next pregnancy.

Situation B) Couple uses NFP temporarily to space their children due to health, financial concerns, etc. Really, this is saying: The intellect of people has learned how to arrange female fertility so there is little chance of conception, using scientific gathering of data about her cycle. We do not want another child right now. We will take advantage of the intellect of men to postpone our next pregnancy.

Those are the 2 situations. Now, PassingThru asks: “If we assume that the couple in situation A is carrying out a sinful act (and we do assume that), why do we not assume the couple in situation B is also carrying our a sinful act?” And, to further explain that question: The motives are the same. The actual, physical act is the same (union with no ovum available for conception). The only thing that is different is that before union takes place one couple is using thermometers, charts, etc and the other couple is using a drug company’s lab. That difference took place a few days earlier. So, what is the difference in the time of the union?

Some possible answers: “It is wrong to use science to alter her fertility?” Someone could say, “They are both using science. That is the point of NFP also. It is a different science.”

Or, “ABC separates the procreative and unitive aspects…” In this case, please describe the separation of the procreative and unitive aspects that are different in the 2 cases above. By which we mean, “Please identify the procreative aspect and the unitive aspect in direct terms so we can understand them. And then, tell us what is different about the 2 cases.”

And so on. I am sure there is an answer. I really am. I would like to hear it. Why is one OK, and the other not?

Or, maybe the answer is “You can’t understand unless you believe the Church.” That is fine as an answer, but please just tell us.

Thanks again,
I an beginning to see where PassingThru is coming from.

Minny

If your reasoning works for you, so be it.

How about a little factual info? NFP couples have a divorce rate of less than 10%. Divorce rate otherwise is 50%.

Another personal tidbit. Since I started nfp, I haven’t had to substitute the marital act with “cuddling”.

Not once.

 

[PassingThru]

I have been trying to think of a different way to phrase the questions that PassingThru has.

How about this:

Situation A) Couple uses ABC temporarily to space the children due to health, financial concerns, etc. Really, this is saying: The intellect of people has learned how to arrange female fertility so there is little chance of conception, using (for example) medicine. We do not want another child right now. We will take advantage of the intellect of men to postpone our next pregnancy.

Situation B) Couple uses NFP temporarily to space their children due to health, financial concerns, etc. Really, this is saying: The intellect of people has learned how to arrange female fertility so there is little chance of conception, using scientific gathering of data about her cycle. We do not want another child right now. We will take advantage of the intellect of men to postpone our next pregnancy.

Those are the 2 situations. Now, PassingThru asks: “If we assume that the couple in situation A is carrying out a sinful act (and we do assume that), why do we not assume the couple in situation B is also carrying our a sinful act?” And, to further explain that question: The motives are the same. The actual, physical act is the same (union with no ovum available for conception). The only thing that is different is that before union takes place one couple is using thermometers, charts, etc and the other couple is using a drug company’s lab. That difference took place a few days earlier. So, what is the difference in the time of the union?

Some possible answers: “It is wrong to use science to alter her fertility?” Someone could say, “They are both using science. That is the point of NFP also. It is a different science.”

Or, “ABC separates the procreative and unitive aspects…” In this case, please describe the separation of the procreative and unitive aspects that are different in the 2 cases above. By which we mean, “Please identify the procreative aspect and the unitive aspect in direct terms so we can understand them. And then, tell us what is different about the 2 cases.”

And so on. I am sure there is an answer. I really am. I would like to hear it. Why is one OK, and the other not?

Or, maybe the answer is “You can’t understand unless you believe the Church.” That is fine as an answer, but please just tell us.

Thanks again,
I an beginning to see where PassingThru is coming from.

Minny

You picked up something I said many pages ago. I will repeat it here:

“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.”

Disagreeing with ABC as a matter of faith is not in question. Agreeing with NFP as a matter of faith is not in question. Saying ABC is immoral because of “X”, without being able to clearly show how X is NOT applicable to NFP, is an unsupported assertion. If your assertion requires you to already assume ABC is immoral, then you have created a circular argument. You can prove anything with a circular argument.

 

[PassingThru]

If your reasoning works for you, so be it.

How about a little factual info? NFP couples have a divorce rate of less than 10%. Divorce rate otherwise is 50%.

Another personal tidbit. Since I started nfp, I haven’t had to substitute the marital act with “cuddling”.

Not once.

Why would you try and distract the conversation when we are finally getting close to narrowing our focus on one very important, controversial aspect that distinguishes ABC and NFP? One that we have been working on for some time to properly define and evaluate?

(I do not want to go down yet another new path, or agree with your assertion, but assuming that is true, that would be a great, factual piece of information to explain the *benefits *of NFP. It does not relate to our discussion you quoted, however)

 

[davidv]

What is moral intent and what is immoral intent?

Good question. See article 1752 in the excerpt from the Catechism. Intent is the goal of the “act”. In our examples, a common intent shared between NFP and ABC is to avoid pregnancy. This intent can be either moral or immoral. The Church’s teach clearly states the there are moral reasons for spacing births. So, if the intent is consistent with these reasons then the intent is moral.

CCC:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.
  The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
  1751 The *object *chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.
  1752 In contrast to the object, the *intention *resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it. An immoral intent might be to delay a pregnancy because a pregnancy would interfere with your life style.
  1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39 1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.