Why is NFP okay, but artificial contraceptives are not?

[cmudd]

Not exactly. My assertion would only presuppose that a person couldn’t deliberately attempt to exclude nature. Living a normal Christian marriage of taking the fertile and infertile days as they come could hardly be called a deliberate intention and act designed to preclude having relations when the woman is fertile. Sometimes as an exceptional result of human life the conjugal act wouldn’t be consummated when the woman is fertile. I see this as no different than the woman’s fertile time not used by the man because he positioned himself in the wrong part of the bed. The lack of realization of God’s plan in both these cases wouldn’t be “contraception” because no deliberate intention and action was behind the lack of realization. It would simply be an unintended part of human life.

This is very true. However, you cannot use these words to justify the deliberate separation of the unitive and procreative ends of the conjugal act. To do so is to accept contraception, which does this very thing when it posits that union can trump procreation instead of working alongside it.

God bless,

Adam

Could, then, any deliberate act of abstinence be considered unnatural? I was under the impression that you were making an argument from a “natural law” perspective. Or is your contention that any act that deliberately seperates the procreative and unitive aspect of sex is unnatural for men?

If this is the case, then we can say that although we do not desire children, the methods employed by NFP do not seperate the procreative from the unitive if the unaltered act is still open to the transmissionof life… as is the case with NFP.

Would you argue that one must desire children with every conjugal act? In the case when one engaged in the sexual act, but did not want children, would he/she be committing objective sin?

 

[ForeverAdam]

There nothing against the natural moral law in having intercourse during non fertile times.

That’s true. However, there is something against the natural moral law in deliberately intending and attempting to invert/pervert the natural desire of the woman to have relations when she is fertile. This is no less an attempt to reject and invert nature to ensure that the conjugal act is deliberately non-procreative than the use of non-abortive ABC is. In short, it is contraception as much as non-abortive ABC is.

We know this from at least two sources. One source is right reason the other is the Pope.

Well, there is no right reason in saying that the natural fertility of the woman must be maintained because it is a reflection of God’s will for the conjugal act to be procreative and then affirm that it is all right to reject the natural inclination of the woman to have relations when she is fertile, even though this, too, is a reflection of God’s will for the conjugal act to be procreative. This is an artificial, not to mention arbitrary distinction. It is far from “right reason” and insofar as the Pope buys into this illogical stance he too is wrong.

Which source are you basing your position on?

Right reason.

God bless,

Adam

 

[fix]

That’s true. However, there is something against the natural moral law in deliberately intending and attempting to invert/pervert the natural desire of the woman to have relations when she is fertile.

Why? Why is it a perversion to abstain for legitimate reasons? Are we prisoners of our desire?

This is no less an attempt to reject and invert nature to ensure that the conjugal act is deliberately non-procreative than the use of non-abortive ABC is. In short, it is contraception as much as non-abortive ABC is.

The natural moral law is not violated by spacing births. That is why there is a female cycle. There is nothing antiprocreative by abstaining during fertile times. What would be antiprocreative would be to alter the act and render it intentionally sterile. Is it contraceptive sex to not have sex? Would eating lunch be contraceptive? What about driving?

Well, there is no right reason in saying that the natural fertility of the woman must be maintained because it is a reflection of God’s will for the conjugal act to be procreative and then affirm that it is all right to reject the natural inclination of the woman to have relations when she is fertile, even though this, too, is a reflection of God’s will for the conjugal act to be procreative. This is an artificial, not to mention arbitrary distinction. It is far from “right reason” and insofar as the Pope buys into this illogical stance he too is wrong.

You seem to think the procreative aspect of sex is simply about likelihood of conception?

Right reason.

How can it be right reason when it contradicts what is true?

**1956 **The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties: For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… No doubt the forum answer is, “They sinned! **To hell with them.” **

You broadly generalize and misjudge most of us when you write, "*No doubt the forum answer is, 'They sinned! *To hell with them.’ " Most people who regularly respond on this forum would ***never ***respond “to hell with them”. We understand that God determines who goes to heaven or hell. I hope that God won’t send everyone to hell for failing to live up to my understanding of Church teachings, because I struggle to live up to my understanding of Church teachings. Jesus knew we would struggle with sin and sometimes fail, which is why He established the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

…When it comes to the teaching of the Magisterium, I am neither cavalier nor aloof. However, ***if ***the Church preaches ignorance, and I follow the Church, I am, in the least, guilty of the sin of ignorance, as Aquinas taught. Why? Because NOTHING trumps an informed conscience.

“If”- such a little word with such a big meaning. You seem to suggest that the Church Magisterium might teach ignorance. The Church Magisterium does not teach ignorance; but it does teach** humble obedience.**

The devil does not understand humble obedience. His downfall wasn’t his inability to reason; it was his refusal to serve humbly. He is intellectually superior to any mere human intellect and he can twist words to deceive us if we are not humble–that’s how Adam and Eve fell from grace. Jesus did not defeat the devil by “reasoning”; Jesus won our salvation by His humble obedience unto death on the cross.

Humble obedience trumps pride. A Catholic with a so-called “informed conscience” who disagrees with Church’s Magesterial teaching on contraception or any other matter and who suggest that the Church teaches ignorance might have a wee problem with pride.

 

[fix]

Jesus, my brother of whom I am so proud, did all of the wrong things with all of the wrong people and members of this forum are still complaining.

When did He confirm one in their sin? When did He say the moral law was loosened? Even of the pharisees He says to the people to do exactly as they tell you to do. So, I am wondering how is it that Jesus is truth, yet He would contradict Himself?

 

[Jestocost]

God intended the act of conveyence to both transport and exercise the individual. By driving a car you mutilate the act of conveyence by altering the exercise aspect of it. You can see the horrific results of this by the epidemic of problems related to lack of exercise anywhere cars are used.

Is anyone convinced to abandon their vehicles? What if I offer you the perfectly reasonable alternative of a bicycle? Yes, it’s harder to ride a bike, but doing the right thing is often difficult.

The problem I have with this whole thread is that it dances all around the issue of what exactly is sinfull about it. Nothing I have ever read has said why “altering the act”, whatever is meant by that, is sinful.

 

[fix]

God intended the act of conveyence to both transport and exercise the individual. By driving a car you mutilate the act of conveyence by altering the exercise aspect of it. You can see the horrific results of this by the epidemic of problems related to lack of exercise anywhere cars are used.

Is anyone convinced to abandon their vehicles? What if I offer you the perfectly reasonable alternative of a bicycle? Yes, it’s harder to ride a bike, but doing the right thing is often difficult.

The gift of fertility is not like driving. It has a distinct moral significance. It is a moral good. Would we liken friendship to driving a car, or faithfulness?

The problem I have with this whole thread is that it dances all around the issue of what exactly is sinfull about it. Nothing I have ever read has said why “altering the act”, whatever is meant by that, is sinful.

Try HV:

It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

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…

 

[Jestocost]

The gift of fertility is not like driving. It has a distinct moral significance. It is a moral good. Would we liken friendship to driving a car, or faithfulness?

Try HV:

I am really try to understand this, but I’m just not seeing it. I read repeated declarations that it is wrong, but nothing about why it is wrong.

 

[Good_Daughter]

God intended the act of conveyence to both transport and exercise the individual. By driving a car you mutilate the act of conveyence by altering the exercise aspect of it. You can see the horrific results of this by the epidemic of problems related to lack of exercise anywhere cars are used.

Is anyone convinced to abandon their vehicles? What if I offer you the perfectly reasonable alternative of a bicycle? Yes, it’s harder to ride a bike, but doing the right thing is often difficult.

The problem I have with this whole thread is that it dances all around the issue of what exactly is sinfull about it. Nothing I have ever read has said why “altering the act”, whatever is meant by that, is sinful.

You analogy is clever, but Jesus himself rode a donkey, separating conveyance from exercise, so we know that’s not sinful.

“Altering the act” (changing sex in some way) is not a sin, contracepting is a sin. Here’s why:

The Church teaches every act of sex must have both a unitive and procreative aspect. To make sex unitive, the couple comes together. To make sex procreative (ordered toward creation), the couple must never directly alter their own fertility, surgically, chemically or physically. Healthy human fertility is a good and useful gift from God. He has designed it a certain way (perfectly) and does not want us to tamper with it.

Fertility awareness (NFP) allows couples to have sex with increased knowledge of a wife’s (relative) fertility or infertility. If a couple desires pregnancy, they may use naturally fertile days for sex. If they have serious reason to avoid pregnancy, they may abstain from sex altogether or, if they can live with a slight chance conception will occur, they may use naturally less fertile days for sex.

This method (NFP) is accepted by the Church for birth control because with it, a couple makes use of their God-given infertility (occuring also in pregnancy, breastfeeding and after menopause)rather than creating a false infertility of their own making.

Contraception directly seeks to alter fertility. Whether it succeeds or fails at preventing conception, it always removes the procreative aspect of sex.

 

[flachj]

Natural Family Planning is okay, because it is used to plan pregnancy AND to avoid pregnancy. Couples trying to get pregnant yet hesitant to use fertility drugs will attempt what is, in essence NFP.

Any product that interferes with the natural process is not condoned by the Church. My understanding has always been that it’s the artificiality that is the problem…because by using ABC the couple is interfering with God’s plan.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.