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

[XinMinny]

No, better not add any mention of reproduction then as it will destroy the logic. I am glad you pointed this out. (No assumption that contraception is immoral.)

Basis: is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes. This must allow for preservation and promotion of life, for example an amputation to save a life is not intended to cause a disorder but to preserve life.
ABC: artificial birth control disorders the physical constitution or physical processes.
NFP: natural family planning does not disorder the physical constitution or physical processes.
Conclusion: of the two ABC and NFP, only ABC is immoral on this basis, due to intentionally disording the physical constitution or physical processes.

Thanks for this Vico. I think we are finally getting somewhere.

I am still struggling with the basis as you have phrased it here. Not that I think it is totally unworkable, but rather that it needs a little more. The reason that I say that is that as it reads now, the basis seems defined in such a way as to p(name removed by moderator)oint only what you want it to p(name removed by moderator)oint. (I am feeling like I am in a strange world here. First I was pulling for PassingThru, because he/she seemed on to something new in my thought process. Now, I am pulling for Vico, as I think he/she may be on the way to something important.)

Really, Vico, I think you are on to the answer we need. Can you somehow word the basis so that it does all these things:

1. Excludes life-saving measures.
2. Excludes pain relievers.
3. Includes all normal body systems (that is, reproduction is not singled out).
4. Is still intuitively obvious to most people.

I really think you may be able to do it.

However, in this last post, the basis is vague enough that it doesn’t quite stand as a foundation on which to build a logical argument.

At least that is my feeling.

And, thanks again for playing along. I think I am learning lots, especially about other people’s thought processes.

~ Minny

 

[PassingThru]

Thanks for this Vico. I think we are finally getting somewhere.

I am still struggling with the basis as you have phrased it here. Not that I think it is totally unworkable, but rather that it needs a little more. The reason that I say that is that as it reads now, the basis seems defined in such a way as to p(name removed by moderator)oint only what you want it to p(name removed by moderator)oint. (I am feeling like I am in a strange world here. First I was pulling for PassingThru, because he/she seemed on to something new in my thought process. Now, I am pulling for Vico, as I think he/she may be on the way to something important.)

Really, Vico, I think you are on to the answer we need. Can you somehow word the basis so that it does all these things:

1. Excludes life-saving measures.
2. Excludes pain relievers.
3. Includes all normal body systems (that is, reproduction is not singled out).
4. Is still intuitively obvious to most people.

I really think you may be able to do it.

However, in this last post, the basis is vague enough that it doesn’t quite stand as a foundation on which to build a logical argument.

At least that is my feeling.

And, thanks again for playing along. I think I am learning lots, especially about other people’s thought processes.

~ Minny

Ehhhh, what? Excludes pain killers and life saving measures? Why would we exclude those? Or, why not include more? Are you saying we can no longer morally diet? What about my buddies Rogaine when he started losing his hair at 20 years old? We could sit here and create a list of 1000 things. How would the wording affect anything?

Sorry, I feel like this got pulled in a very odd direction.

 

[XinMinny]

Sorry for the confusion, PassingThru.

My use of the word “excludes” was intended to mean, “excludes from the prohibition.” In other words, we need a basis that somehow applies to the working of the body, but does not apply to pain killers, etc.

One way to do that is to simply say:

It is immoral to disrupt the normal function of body systems, except for using pain killers (they are OK), etc.

However, that also would be a very contrived basis, one that is designed specifically to arrive at the conclusion we are looking for, and thus it is not logical.

What is needed to to back up one level, and find a basis that prohibits adjustments to the working of the body (like St Francis posted about assisting the body, for example, although I don’t think that quite works). This basis has to be self-evident, and not obviously contrived to apply to ABC, or else the logic falls apart, just as it did earlier when the basis was rewritten to include only the reproductive system. Granted, this is very hard to do. I am simply quite happy that Vico has finally understood what we have been saying, that you can’t say, ABC is immoral, and then say, “We proved ABC is immoral.” This is simply circular reasoning.

Vico is now trying in the correct way (see the last post) but is not quite there yet. At least that is my thought.

Is that clearer?

I can try a different way if needed.

~ Minny

 

[Greg27]

Personally I think methods of periodic or total continence are a method of contraception. I won’t argue about the morality of this vs artificial contraception, but I think there is some merit at least to the argument that people who arrange their sex life in a manner so that a child can never be born are in a certain way saying ‘no’ to one another. But in light of the booming global population and shortages of food, housing and raw materials, I think it is reasonable for couples to use proportional methods to limit conception according to conscience.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Vico this is your quote:

Basis: is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes. This must allow for preservation and promotion of life, for example an amputation to save a life is not intended to cause a disorder but to preserve life.
ABC: artificial birth control disorders the physical constitution or physical processes.
NFP: natural family planning does not disorder the physical constitution or physical processes.
Conclusion: of the two ABC and NFP, only ABC is immoral on this basis, due to intentionally disording the physical constitution or physical processes.

But is this the reasoning used by the Church.?

Observing the Natural Law

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

 

[St_Francis]

Thanks for this Vico. I think we are finally getting somewhere.

I am still struggling with the basis as you have phrased it here. Not that I think it is totally unworkable, but rather that it needs a little more. The reason that I say that is that as it reads now, the basis seems defined in such a way as to p(name removed by moderator)oint only what you want it to p(name removed by moderator)oint. (I am feeling like I am in a strange world here. First I was pulling for PassingThru, because he/she seemed on to something new in my thought process. Now, I am pulling for Vico, as I think he/she may be on the way to something important.)

Really, Vico, I think you are on to the answer we need. Can you somehow word the basis so that it does all these things:

1. Excludes life-saving measures.
2. Excludes pain relievers.
3. Includes all normal body systems (that is, reproduction is not singled out).
4. Is still intuitively obvious to most people.

I really think you may be able to do it.

However, in this last post, the basis is vague enough that it doesn’t quite stand as a foundation on which to build a logical argument.

At least that is my feeling.

And, thanks again for playing along. I think I am learning lots, especially about other people’s thought processes.

~ Minny

Vico wrote: …[It is] immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes. This must allow for preservation and promotion of life, for example an amputation to save a life is not intended to cause a disorder but to preserve life.

It is immoral to 1. intentionally, and 2. disorder the physical constitution… WRT you first 2 points, 1) Excludes life-saving measures, and 2) Excludes pain relievers, neither life-saving measures, normal medical treatment of disorders, nor the relief of pain disorders the body, but rather attempts to *restore *the body to its normal functioning, or in the case of a birth defect to bring the body up to the way it was intended to be. so medical practice of all kinds is outside the scope of what Vico said.

Now, as to you last two points, 3) Includes all normal body systems (that is, reproduction is not singled out), 4) Is still intuitively obvious to most people; this is very interesting because this rule which Vico is bringing up is *so very *intuitive that in most cases we already practice it. In fact, we go further, and condemn those who try to enhance the body *beyond *what it is designed for, ie, by the use of steroids to increase physical performance.

For example, consider those cases in which a doctor does something wrong, like leaves a part of the intestine open rather than closing it when he is operating. We would consider the patient “broken”, and this would not count as good medicine, would it? The patient would want, and we would all agree that he deserved, to be fixed. The patient’s body functioning was disordered by this error.

As another example, my neighbor had what I believe is called a gastric bypass because he was morbidly overweight (like 200–250 pounds overweight on a 5’6" height). Here the operation is to help the man be at the weight he is designed to be, to restore him to normal functioning.

But if a young woman with a perfectly normal weight or even low weight tried to get this operation, the doctor would refuse and send her to a psychologist! Why? Because her body is already functioning normally.

---

Now we will consider the issue of artificial birth control. This is designed to *stop *the *normal *functioning of the 2 bodies involved, in the way that the error of the surgeon above *stopped *the functioning of the body of the patient.

So we can see that the use of abc would be analogous to someone’s requesting an operation to insert a tube which would redirect the food he ate to a bag outside himself so that he could eat as much as he wanted to without gaining weight. No doctor would do that, would they? And the reason they would not do that is that the “patient” would simply need to abstain from eating in order to achieve his goal, which is to not gain weight.

 

[XinMinny]

Mary Gail,

Thanks for this post. I appreciate that you copy from actual Catholic sources.

Observing the Natural Law

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God,

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Maybe it is not fair to do this, but I am going to requote a piece of this.

"each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. "

"which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. "

Now, back to initial question of this thread: It seems very possible to interpret the expression, “man on his own initiative” to include NFP. Surely, logic woudl indicate that the couple themselves are using scientific data to avoid being together when conception is highly possible. In so doing, are they not breaking the procreative significance?

This has been the question. What is the difference? Both ABC and NFP seem to be scientific (although they surely use different sciences) and both are means to limit the possibility of procreation.

My conclusion has to be that somehow there is a different definition of ‘procreative’ and ‘unitive’ that the Church has made. Can you help us with that Mary Gail?

Thanks,

Minny

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hello…I’ll tryn to explain it this way.

Say you want to avoid seeing someone, let’s say the town gossip.

You will be going to a party where the town gossip has also been invited.

You want to avoid her. So which actions would be immoral?

A: you have her kidnapped so she does not show up at the party.

B: you don’t go to the party. If you are not there you cannot see her.

C. you call the host and ask, "Has Miss Gossip come? Will she be coming? Has she left? and if the answers are yes then go to the part.

The outcome is the same. you avoid the Gossip. But kidnapping her is immoral. Now is it immoral to not attend the party, or immoral to attend only if she is not there?

which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. "

Now, back to initial question of this thread: It seems very possible to interpret the expression, “man on his own initiative” to include NFP. Surely, logic woudl indicate that the couple themselves are using scientific data to avoid being together when conception is highly possible. In so doing, are they not breaking the procreative significance?

No, because, according to Humane Vitae:

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

I can’t really argue it better than the above.

 

[Doc_Keele]

the natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason.

If his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism – the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse is for babies and it’s for bonding, within marriage, where children can be reared with a father and mother in a stable family unit.

Which is all rather begging the question Abu!!!

 

[PassingThru]

I like all the discussion going on. Interesting.

Minny, I like that you used “contrived”. That is where it sounded like you guys were headed. It sounded like a case of wordsmithing, not logic.

I am curious to see if this will lead to actually answering the question. Of course, without using “ABC is immoral” as the proof.

What you posted below is fine, but of course, it in no way answers the question. It is really a simple example, followed by a quote from a Pope that says “ABC is wrong”. This is fine, but it is an expression of faith alone. Not an explanation of why NFP is acceptable, yet ABC is not.

This last step is a doozie. (is that how you spell doozie? i have never actually written that word…!) I am curious to see how it can be done, as it has not been done so far.

Hello…I’ll tryn to explain it this way.

Say you want to avoid seeing someone, let’s say the town gossip.

You will be going to a party where the town gossip has also been invited.

You want to avoid her. So which actions would be immoral?

A: you have her kidnapped so she does not show up at the party.

B: you don’t go to the party. If you are not there you cannot see her.

C. you call the host and ask, "Has Miss Gossip come? Will she be coming? Has she left? and if the answers are yes then go to the part.

The outcome is the same. you avoid the Gossip. But kidnapping her is immoral. Now is it immoral to not attend the party, or immoral to attend only if she is not there.

No, because, according to Humane Vitae:

I can’t really argue it better than the above.

 

[davidv]

Which is all rather begging the question Abu!!!

Please explain how this is so?

 

[XinMinny]

Vico wrote: …[It is] immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes. This must allow for preservation and promotion of life, for example an amputation to save a life is not intended to cause a disorder but to preserve life.

It is immoral to 1. intentionally, and 2. disorder the physical constitution… WRT you first 2 points, 1) Excludes life-saving measures, and 2) Excludes pain relievers, neither life-saving measures, normal medical treatment of disorders, nor the relief of pain disorders the body, but rather attempts to *restore *the body to its normal functioning, or in the case of a birth defect to bring the body up to the way it was intended to be. so medical practice of all kinds is outside the scope of what Vico said.

Now, as to you last two points, 3) Includes all normal body systems (that is, reproduction is not singled out), 4) Is still intuitively obvious to most people; this is very interesting because this rule which Vico is bringing up is *so very *intuitive that in most cases we already practice it. In fact, we go further, and condemn those who try to enhance the body *beyond *what it is designed for, ie, by the use of steroids to increase physical performance.

For example, consider those cases in which a doctor does something wrong, like leaves a part of the intestine open rather than closing it when he is operating. We would consider the patient “broken”, and this would not count as good medicine, would it? The patient would want, and we would all agree that he deserved, to be fixed. The patient’s body functioning was disordered by this error.

As another example, my neighbor had what I believe is called a gastric bypass because he was morbidly overweight (like 200–250 pounds overweight on a 5’6" height). Here the operation is to help the man be at the weight he is designed to be, to restore him to normal functioning.

But if a young woman with a perfectly normal weight or even low weight tried to get this operation, the doctor would refuse and send her to a psychologist! Why? Because her body is already functioning normally.

---

Now we will consider the issue of artificial birth control. This is designed to *stop *the *normal *functioning of the 2 bodies involved, in the way that the error of the surgeon above *stopped *the functioning of the body of the patient.

So we can see that the use of abc would be analogous to someone’s requesting an operation to insert a tube which would redirect the food he ate to a bag outside himself so that he could eat as much as he wanted to without gaining weight. No doctor would do that, would they? And the reason they would not do that is that the “patient” would simply need to abstain from eating in order to achieve his goal, which is to not gain weight.

St Francis,

This is a good description. However, I wonder how you would reply is someone came along and said, in regard to the first part I have made red ; “Ah, but you are misunderstanding medically what pain relievers do. Medically, they purposely disrupt the nervous system from working as it should. They really don’t restore anything. They prevent the patient from feeling pain. Whatever caused the pain is still there, the patient can’t feel it. Really, all they do make you feel better. That sounds to me like what ABC does, it intentionally prevents the repro system from working, and the patient feels better.”

And, concerning the second part I have made red: What if someone came along and said, “Gastric bypass is a medical attempt to make the digestive system work in the way the patient wants, not the way the system seems to want to work on its own. It is also, therefore, very similar to ABC. And, further, if there is some illness involved that makes it necessary to force nature to work the way you want it to work, how is that unlike a woman with health issues for whom pregnancy has a good chance of being deadly, undergoing tubal ligation. For her safety, she is making her body work the way she wants it to. Yet, marital union after tubal ligation is forbidden, being ABC.”

These seem to be the problems with the logic as you have described it, but maybe I am missing something.

Thanks,

Minny

 

[Doc_Keele]

Please explain how this is so?

The post doesn’t address the issue at hand in any meaningful way.

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis,

This is a good description. However, I wonder how you would reply is someone came along and said, in regard to the first part I have made red ; “Ah, but you are misunderstanding medically what pain relievers do. Medically, they purposely disrupt the nervous system from working as it should. They really don’t restore anything. They prevent the patient from feeling pain. Whatever caused the pain is still there, the patient can’t feel it. Really, all they do make you feel better. That sounds to me like what ABC does, it intentionally prevents the repro system from working, and the patient feels better.”

Pain is a warning sign of something wrong (OK, you might get pain out of proportion to the problem, but overall that’s what’s it’s for). Pain is also disruptive of the functioning of the patient, mentally, emotionally, even spiritually; and can be relieved and in fact *should *be relieved if possible.

And, concerning the second part I have made red: What if someone came along and said, "Gastric bypass is a medical attempt to make the digestive system work in the way the patient wants, not the way the system seems to want to work on its own. It is also, therefore, very similar to ABC.

Maybe gastric bypass was a bad example, I’m not sure. I just used it because I was able to get the other examples from it and it all seemed very clear.

Maybe I could come up with another example: Removal of a limb. Amputation is sometimes medically necessary, but no doctor would perform an amputation on a perfectly healthy limb, even if the patient wanted it.

And, further, if there is some illness involved that makes it necessary to force nature to work the way you want it to work,

We know how the body is designed to work, and illness and other conditions are *not *the way it is supposed to work. We are not “forcing” nature to work “the way we want” when we are *fixing *a *problem. *

how is that unlike a woman with health issues for whom pregnancy has a good chance of being deadly, undergoing tubal ligation. For her safety, she is making her body work the way she wants it to. Yet, marital union after tubal ligation is forbidden, being ABC."

If a woman were to have a cancer in her tubes, then they could be removed as a part of restoring her body to health. However, removing the tubes when it is not a part of restoring her body to health would be immoral.

Imagine this: a person has cancer of the stomach. it is treated, but the doctor says to her: well, just to prevent a recurrence of the cancer, we want to remove your stomach altogether. See how that doesn’t make sense to us?

These seem to be the problems with the logic as you have described it, but maybe I am missing something.

Thanks,

Minny

I think that part of the problem everyone is having is that we are trying to explain something which makes sense from a Catholic point of view, but not from a non-Catholic point of view. The way that most people in our current society view sexual relations is completely antithetical to the way that the Catholic Church views sexual relations, and it is really really hard to explain what we are saying when the other person is “speaking a different language,” if you see what I mean.

I am really grateful to this thread for forcing me to think all this through and realise the incredible importance that God has put on this gift to us, and that is kind of the way Catholicism is supposed to work: we are presented with a conundrum, maybe some teaching with which we have difficulty, and instead of coming up with reasons that it is wrong, we grapple with it and try to understand it. Then we are given a great gift of understanding God more than we did; we see His glory or His love for us more than we did before.

 

[St_Francis]

Here is part of what the Pope wrote in Humanae Vitae:

Faithfulness to God’s Design

1. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.” (13)

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

Recourse to Infertile Periods

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

 

[Doc_Keele]

but no doctor would perform an amputation on a perfectly healthy limb, even if the patient wanted it.

Not true actually. There has been a case in the UK.

There’s plenty of other instances where healthy tissue is removed. What about gender reassignment surgery?

 

[XinMinny]

I think that part of the problem everyone is having is that we are trying to explain something which makes sense from a Catholic point of view, but not from a non-Catholic point of view. The way that most people in our current society view sexual relations is completely antithetical to the way that the Catholic Church views sexual relations, and it is really really hard to explain what we are saying when the other person is “speaking a different language,” if you see what I mean.

I am really grateful to this thread for forcing me to think all this through and realise the incredible importance that God has put on this gift to us, and that is kind of the way Catholicism is supposed to work: we are presented with a conundrum, maybe some teaching with which we have difficulty, and instead of coming up with reasons that it is wrong, we grapple with it and try to understand it. Then we are given a great gift of understanding God more than we did; we see His glory or His love for us more than we did before.

Francis,
Thanks for the last paragraph especially. And, what you quoted in the next post from Humanae Vitae. The part that I am happy with is that others besides me have enjoyed the process of working over this question. I have enjoyed it as well.

I also like what you wrote about Catholic vs non-Catholic viewpoints. I believe you are right. I don’t have a Catholic viewpoint, and it would be unfair of me to assume that I could see what a Catholic viewpoint is. I mean that with all respect.

It really is impossible for me to see this question (ABC vs NFP) the way you see it. There are probably other questions that might come up about my faith that you would say the same about (ie you just can’t see it the way I see it).

I am glad for this idea anyway, that I can respect your thought process, because we have been working through it.

All the best,

~ Minny

 

[davidv]

The post doesn’t address the issue at hand in any meaningful way.

It also wasn’t “begging the question”.

 

[PassingThru]

Not true actually. There has been a case in the UK.

There’s plenty of other instances where healthy tissue is removed. What about gender reassignment surgery?

This is where I was worried this line of thinking goes. (Not you specifically Doc, the conversation in general). We now are down in the mud generating lists of things we can and can not do to a body, why they can or should be done, to what ends, etc etc etc. By all means, go ahead, but where is it going to lead? You will not get any consensus with this thinking. Maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it.

This started with using the basis of “It is immoral to disorder the physical constitution” which is a statement of such incredible scope. The myriad of things you could assert from such a statement is overwhelming. We are talking about medical procedures, amputations, gastric bypass. But at the same time, this will also be applied to placing a condom over a penis? Or taking Ibuprofin? Morality aside, how these are going to reconciled is beyond me. Like I said, go ahead, but I do not see it happening, even remotely. Which is why I fail to see this Basis as anything you can create the ABC vice NFP distinction. It is far to vague, to open to interpretation, subjective, let alone applied in a very predetermined way. But, continue to have at it…

 

[XinMinny]

Passing Thru,

Quick question:

Have you been holding out on us? Do you have a formulation which would logically declare NFP to be moral, but ABC not?

I don’t. I was hoping maybe we could get to one by working together. Are you game to make a suggestion of how to start?

Or, maybe you have thought about this quite a bit, and you don’t have one, so you have already decided that it must be a matter of faith.

I am beginning to think that as a non-Catholic, I won’t ever understand it. I can’t find a logical formulation. It doesn’t seem any one else here can. So it must be that it starts from faith.

I would love it to be proven wrong.

~Minny