D
Why is "Natural Family Planning" ok when other contraceptive methods are not?
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
I can, and others have. You have proven to deny that evidence was presented.No, it’s just a NO
You can’t provide any reasons or evidence. Just be honest.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
If anyone can work out what this sentence means, you have either my congratulations or my commiserations
You seem to be claiming that you **can **give reasons, but won’t
well anyone can say that
anyway I won’t waste any more time, if anyone actually wants to debate the thread can start to make some sense
P
PassingThru
Guest
I know where you are coming from Doc. Here is how I think it applies to this discussion.If anyone can work out what this sentence means, you have either my congratulations or my commiserations
You seem to be claiming that you **can **give reasons, but won’t
well anyone can say that
If someone were to walk up and randomly kill a child, there are many ways we could agree that this violates “natural law”. It would be something most every reasonable person would agree with.
In contrast, the argument presented here is that the changes presented from ABC are a clear violation of natural law, while the changes presented from NFP do not. Obviously, this is NOT as clear cut as the above case. I fail to see enough of a difference to distinguish NFP vice ABC as it relates to natural law. I think they would either both fail, or both pass.
I would venture to say what Doc, myself, and others are asserting that in order to clearly define ABC as violating natural law, and NFP as NOT violating natural requires you to view this law through a religious, or theological, lens. Which tends to remove it from that “natural” realm to a more “theological” argument.
Or maybe not…
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Yes, there’s “natural law” and there’s common morality.
I’ve heard people claim that we “naturally” or intuitively know natural law. Then others claim we have to learn it from the Church.
As Passing Thru says, the difference between ABC and NFP doesn’t intuitively make sense to people. Remember natural law isn’t purely a religious concept.
I’ve heard people claim that we “naturally” or intuitively know natural law. Then others claim we have to learn it from the Church.
As Passing Thru says, the difference between ABC and NFP doesn’t intuitively make sense to people. Remember natural law isn’t purely a religious concept.
A
Abu
Guest
Blessings for Easter to all and progress in faith and reason
It’s very interesting that the Roman philosopher Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”
Any wrong action is against the natural moral law: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided. Our consciences reflect the natural law.
Right, it isn’t purely a religious concept at all. As we have minds with which to think, and free-wills to choose, it is natural to exercise our reason from cause to effect and thus we may determine whether an action is towards a perceived good – is right or wrong. We received the concept of “nature” from Aristotle as: “Nature is a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily in virtue of itself and not in virtue of a concomitant attribute.” Physics, 192b 21-23]. From this the Scholastic definition: “the nature of a thing is its essence considered as a principle of operation.”
It’s very interesting that the Roman philosopher Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”
Any wrong action is against the natural moral law: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided. Our consciences reflect the natural law.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
OK Abu , all you’ve done so far is prove that there may be such a thing as common morality.
A
Abu
Guest
We identify or discover the natural law in ourselves through right reason.
Man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
The natural law signifies 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 natural law is the law of human being alone—not other animals, not birds, not rocks, not trees, not planets. The natural law arises from our particular nature. It is natural insofar as it is rooted in our nature, and moral insofar as our nature defines what is good and evil for us.
Well, just what are we? We are rational, moral animals—the only rational, moral animals. We are the one animal that must think even to survive, and the one animal whose actions are not governed by instincts but are judged by standards of good and evil. We don’t consider it cruel not to teach your dog to read, but we think that keeping children from getting an education deprives them of something they should have. We don’t jail rambunctious roosters for forcing themselves on beleaguered hens, but we send men to the slammer for rape. [Dr Benjamin Wiker].
John Finnis writes: “for Aquinas, the way to discover what is morally right (virtue) and wrong (vice) is to ask, not what is in accordance with human nature, but what is reasonable.” So, then, human good is in accord with reason and human evil lies outside the order of reasonableness: “So human virtue, which makes good both the human person and his work, is in accordance with human nature just in so far as it is in accordance with reason; and vice is contrary to human nature just in so far as it is contrary to the order of reasonableness.” (Aquinas, Summa, I-II, qu. 71, art. 2, resp.).
Man is capable by his own activity of acquiring what is lacking and developing what is already possessed to fulfill his nature. So man can know his incompleteness; he can see what he is now and discover the direction of fulfillment by scrutiny of his own nature in body, mind and spirit – to achieve himself fully. As a free agent, he has an obligation to achieve himself fully, and this bond of obligation is the natural law. All that is knowable about man through psychology, history or any of the sciences is relevant to the natural law, is part of the natural law. The natural law is outside of man’s control because created by God in man’s nature.
The natural law signifies 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 natural law is the law of human being alone—not other animals, not birds, not rocks, not trees, not planets. The natural law arises from our particular nature. It is natural insofar as it is rooted in our nature, and moral insofar as our nature defines what is good and evil for us.
Well, just what are we? We are rational, moral animals—the only rational, moral animals. We are the one animal that must think even to survive, and the one animal whose actions are not governed by instincts but are judged by standards of good and evil. We don’t consider it cruel not to teach your dog to read, but we think that keeping children from getting an education deprives them of something they should have. We don’t jail rambunctious roosters for forcing themselves on beleaguered hens, but we send men to the slammer for rape. [Dr Benjamin Wiker].
John Finnis writes: “for Aquinas, the way to discover what is morally right (virtue) and wrong (vice) is to ask, not what is in accordance with human nature, but what is reasonable.” So, then, human good is in accord with reason and human evil lies outside the order of reasonableness: “So human virtue, which makes good both the human person and his work, is in accordance with human nature just in so far as it is in accordance with reason; and vice is contrary to human nature just in so far as it is contrary to the order of reasonableness.” (Aquinas, Summa, I-II, qu. 71, art. 2, resp.).
A
amyjo10
Guest
Abu,
I am truly disgusted that you would MOCK the anguish I have felt over this issue by flippantly stating “it’s not rocket science.”
If this issue were simple, no one would debate it. I totally agree with the argument the Church teaches, but I think the argument leads to the Quiverfull movement. It does not prove that we should use NFP, it proves we should be Quiverfull. I think that the sheer knowledge of when you are infertile during the month changes our mentality: a couple is open to life physically by not contracepting, but not mentally because they are having sex when they know they cannot get pregnant.
Please reconsider posting anything ever again, as not to discourage any other new believers from joining a Church that treats their natural curiosity for Truth with such contempt.
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
Christopher West responds to this question here:
Contraception vs. NFP
*A further question arises: Would a couple be doing anything to falsify their sexual union if they embraced during a time of natural infertility? Take, for example, a couple past childbearing years. They know their union will not result in a child. Are they violating their vows if they engage in intercourse with this knowledge? Are they contracepting? No. Contraception, by definition, is the choice to engage in an act of intercourse, but then do something else to render it sterile. This can be done by using various devices, hormones, surgical procedures, and the age-old method of withdrawal.
Couples who use natural family planning (NFP) when they have a just reason to avoid pregnancy never render their sexual acts sterile; they never contracept. They track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, embrace when they are naturally infertile. Readers unfamiliar with modern NFP methods should note that they are 98-99% effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. Furthermore, any woman, regardless of the regularity of her cycles, can use NFP successfully. This is not your grandmother’s “rhythm method.”
To some people this seems like splitting hairs. “What’s the big difference,” they ask, “between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? The end result is the same: both couples avoid children.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between killing Grandma and just waiting until she dies naturally? End result’s the same thing: dead Grandma. Yes, but one is a serious sin called murder, and the other is an act of God.
If a person can tell the difference between euthanasia and natural death, he can tell the difference between contraception and NFP. It’s the same difference. I’m not equating contraception and murder. That’s not the analogy. Rather, Grandma’s natural death and a woman’s natural period of infertility are both acts of God. But in killing Grandma or in rendering sex sterile, we take the powers of life into our own hands—just like the deceiver originally tempted us to do—and make ourselves like God (see Gn 3:5).
This is why Pope John Paul II concludes that contraception “is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God” (address Oct. 10, 1983).*
A
Abu
Guest
amjo10
Christ’s Church teaches in Humanae Vitae that:
"10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.
"With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)
"With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.
“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, **responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.” **(Paul VI, 1968).
[vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968humanae-vitae_en.html]](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...nts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968humanae-vitae_en.html]) [My emphasis].
You cannot “totally agree with the argument the Church teaches” and “think” otherwise. That is
unreasonable. Secondly, we are not automatons, and She has given us the reason in H.V. why we need to have serious reasons to use NBR. The least we can do is to offer and support Christ’s teaching through His Church while the devil, the world and the flesh do their utmost to destroy Her and us.
There are enough half-educated Catholics and dissenters abroad already due to dissenting theologians, lax bishops, and the lack of correct formation in families, schools and parishes, without further confusing what is faithfully taught. Let’s get with Her.
“Natural curiosity for truth” uses natural God-given reason and the demonstrable knowledge that Christ has given His Church infallibility to teach His truth. The Church which enabled the development of science only in the West enabled the understanding of fertile periods, so that we could with faith and reason build Christ’s kingdom on earth, a kingdom of justice, love and peace.
Christ’s Church teaches in Humanae Vitae that:
"10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.
"With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)
"With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.
“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, **responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.” **(Paul VI, 1968).
[vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968humanae-vitae_en.html]](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...nts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968humanae-vitae_en.html]) [My emphasis].
You cannot “totally agree with the argument the Church teaches” and “think” otherwise. That is
unreasonable. Secondly, we are not automatons, and She has given us the reason in H.V. why we need to have serious reasons to use NBR. The least we can do is to offer and support Christ’s teaching through His Church while the devil, the world and the flesh do their utmost to destroy Her and us.
There are enough half-educated Catholics and dissenters abroad already due to dissenting theologians, lax bishops, and the lack of correct formation in families, schools and parishes, without further confusing what is faithfully taught. Let’s get with Her.
“Natural curiosity for truth” uses natural God-given reason and the demonstrable knowledge that Christ has given His Church infallibility to teach His truth. The Church which enabled the development of science only in the West enabled the understanding of fertile periods, so that we could with faith and reason build Christ’s kingdom on earth, a kingdom of justice, love and peace.
D
davidv
Guest
Among other reasons, such as, all of the facts, all of the consequences.
Then why doesn’t common morality find ABC immoral?
A
amyjo10
Guest
Abu,
I agree that there are too many half-educated Catholics and dissenters, that is precisely why I am asking questions. I will be married in July and practice NFP because I want to obey the Church and God. I don’t, however, want to grow in bitterness because I obey, but do not understand. I want to have clear conviction and the peace that comes from the Lord, so that when I tell others I use NFP, I can do so with a joyful heart.
I simply seek a peace. I know that the papacy calls birth control “intrinsically evil,” and I trust that, but I want to feel it and know it in my own heart. Though I have not read such, I think the Papacy would say it is shameful to insult and belittle new believers, who want to obey, but do not comprehend. By your words I’m not sure you agree with the Papacy on that issue.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
C
CatofAlexandria
Guest
Amy,
First: :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :extrahappy: Today is a day to rejoice! Congrats and enjoy your new birth tonight. It’s amazing, trust me. I’ve been through it myself.
Second: I must say, in Christian charity, that one of your premises is incorrect. Namely,
It’s reasonable, I think, to conclude that the practice of Natural Family Planning, although it meets the first, physical prong of this two part test, implies a certain closed-to-life mental state, failing the second prong. As someone who has practiced Natural Family Planning for the past year and a half, however, I must say that this conflation of acts with mental states is very wrong. When you’re open to life, you’re open to God’s will. And NFP requires that you monthly assess God’s will to determine whether you should abstain. There’s also a certain comfort in barrier methods and ABC that is not there with NFP (even though, technically, the chances are similar): I always feel a tinge of fear and excitement each month as I wonder if there’s some possibility that we have conceived a child. It’s my reaction to this knowledge–the knowledge of the possibility–that is truly telling of my openness to God’s will. You can either say, “NO! That can’t be! I won’t have it happen!” Or you can say, “Lord, I thought I was supposed to wait for now, but, if it should happen, your will be done!”
God doesn’t want us to have as many children as possible when there are serious reasons for avoiding a pregnancy. So there must be a way of avoiding pregnancy that’s still ordered towards procreation, prudently, prayerfully, and in union with your spouse. We cooperate with God when we create new life. Mentally, you can say “Lord, whatever your will is, let it be done,” even though you think God’s will is that you avoid pregnancy for now and, in response, you practice NFP.
First: :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :extrahappy: :extrahappy: Today is a day to rejoice! Congrats and enjoy your new birth tonight. It’s amazing, trust me. I’ve been through it myself.
Second: I must say, in Christian charity, that one of your premises is incorrect. Namely,
Knowledge of not being able to conceive does not mean that you’re not “open to life” in the sense that you’re not willing to embrace the Lord’s will. I’ve stated in a previous thread my own understanding of the Church’s teaching, that it can really be broken into two parts (“ordered towards procreation,” and “open to life”), with the first being primarily physical and the other mental or attitudinal. “For procreation,” in this sense, does not mean that procreation must result, otherwise, absurd moral conclusions would follow. Given this, I’ve also said that one can be completely infertile physically but also open mentally to conception however miraculous that might be. One could also be completely fertile, but mentally reject God’s will, deeply desiring that conception not occur.
It’s reasonable, I think, to conclude that the practice of Natural Family Planning, although it meets the first, physical prong of this two part test, implies a certain closed-to-life mental state, failing the second prong. As someone who has practiced Natural Family Planning for the past year and a half, however, I must say that this conflation of acts with mental states is very wrong. When you’re open to life, you’re open to God’s will. And NFP requires that you monthly assess God’s will to determine whether you should abstain. There’s also a certain comfort in barrier methods and ABC that is not there with NFP (even though, technically, the chances are similar): I always feel a tinge of fear and excitement each month as I wonder if there’s some possibility that we have conceived a child. It’s my reaction to this knowledge–the knowledge of the possibility–that is truly telling of my openness to God’s will. You can either say, “NO! That can’t be! I won’t have it happen!” Or you can say, “Lord, I thought I was supposed to wait for now, but, if it should happen, your will be done!”
God doesn’t want us to have as many children as possible when there are serious reasons for avoiding a pregnancy. So there must be a way of avoiding pregnancy that’s still ordered towards procreation, prudently, prayerfully, and in union with your spouse. We cooperate with God when we create new life. Mentally, you can say “Lord, whatever your will is, let it be done,” even though you think God’s will is that you avoid pregnancy for now and, in response, you practice NFP.
A
Abu
Guest
amyjo
Joyful congratulations on your baptism. May God bless you and your growth in faith and reason.
Amyjo in post #546
Quotes “bleh_confused”:
“Simple: As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is legitimate. To use the infertile periods only or without serious reasons would be thwarting the purpose of procreation, obviously. [My emphasis]
“It’s not rocket science. “
amyjo rejoins:
Joyful congratulations on your baptism. May God bless you and your growth in faith and reason.
Amyjo in post #546
Quotes “bleh_confused”:
Then complains:
Was offered the answer in post #30, and in post #547 the offering was repeated due to **their **confusion.
“Simple: As God has created the woman with fertile and infertile periods without commanding the use only of the fertile periods, it is obvious that the wise and moral use of the infertile periods, for grave reasons, as His Church teaches, is legitimate. To use the infertile periods only or without serious reasons would be thwarting the purpose of procreation, obviously. [My emphasis]
“It’s not rocket science. “
amyjo rejoins:
To accept and appreciate fact, and presented truth from Christ’s Church, is essential for anyone to grow in faith and morals. All who post, here or elsewhere, must be able to discuss robustly without taking umbrage, especially where the faith is concerned – this may have to be learnt. No one above is being insulted or belittled. If you listen to Fr John Corapi, he frequently uses the phrase “rocket science”, and it is relevant, meaning “rethink”.
R
ryecroft
Guest
I’m not trying to go against what you said - I think I understand it, but it sounds (IMO) to me not far off from and argument like - if God wants you to become pregnant, regardless of what method you’re using to avoid getting pregnant, He can cause you to become pregnant - and that concerns me. It makes me think - we what the heck does it matter if I could get pregnant anyway? Believe me, I do understand that this, as when we tried NFP, we had what were called “break through ovulation” - or as one of the NFP teachers told me - “well, I guess God thinks you should be pregnant - congrats!” when it was obvious, congragulations was nothing I desired. I guess I do pretty much agree with you about if God wants you pregnant regardless of your use of NFP or even ABC, then He’ll allow you to get pregnant (I know this is a paraphrase but it sounds like what you’re saying)- am I off here, because I’ve gotten balled out on here for saying that before.
God Bless
Rye
A
Abu
Guest
Alleging a “circular argument”, without demonstration, appears to be a pet foible with you. No one has used the Church’s teaching to identify the natural law and then the natural law to affirm the Church’s teaching. Nor to affirm the natural law through reason, and then to affirm reason by the natural law.
The fact that the pagan Cicero could affirm that “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting.…eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature”, is confused by you with “the Church” apparently in your circular assumption.
Yet you do see, however grudgingly, that there “may be a common morality”. How obtuse.
Post #564 is explicit, and does not have your fantasy of “circular argument”.
- Status