F
fix
Guest
NFP is open to life because the act is oriented toward procreation as it is unaltered.
- Status
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Unity and procreation are the ends not of marriage, but of the conjugal act specifically, and therein lies the key. Take a look at what budgie said:
NFP does not prevent conception; it measures a woman’s fertility.
It’s really that simple! Nothing to do with effectiveness levels, “natural” vs. “artificial” or anything else.
F
Florida_mom
Guest
Then by definition–menopause breaks the natural law.
There is that word–love again.
You still have not answered as to why you would recommend a condom to a couple as you did on that other thread where life was at stake when that violates church teaching.
NFP is not as systemic as you claim it to be. It’s not a factory. It’s an observation of GOD PROVIDED NATURAL SIGNS OF THE FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. You haven’t even tried it–so you are making these ill formed opinions as though it were some clinical exercise and it isn’t.
If abstinence by your defition is contraceptive inside of a marriage–it is ALWAYS a contraceptive. It isn’t of course–but it doesn’t stop you from using hyperbole to prove your ill formed point.
Condoms aren’t “sometimes a contraceptive”. Neither are BCP’s. They are ALWAYS a contraceptive.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
At a stretch I can see a little of how NFP gets grouped w/ contraception as “Catholic Birth Control”. It is family planning - the common euphemism for abortions, birth control, etc. However, the key to NFP is working w/ God-give cycles to plan a family. In order to have a family, you must have children! However, once someone does the research and actually implements NFP they’re probably not having the same mind-set as a typical ‘contracepting’ couple. Instead of forcing their bodies to work in a non-natural way, they are merely observing their God-given fertility cycles. Nothing is done to alter the natural act nor the fertility cycles themselves. In other words, our bodies are working as God intended them to work when using NFP.
Where do you draw the line with abstaining equalling contraception? I’m not having relations right now, so I am abstaining, but I’m not contracepting. When I had relations last, I wasn’t fertile, so was I contracepting? If I’m tired or my husband is tired while I’m fertile and we abstain, are we contracepting? If I or my husband are unavailable while I’m fertile are we contracepting? When I was single and non-sexually active was I contracepting? For the 6 weeks after my son was born was I contracepting? Am I contracepting when I’m on ‘pelvic rest’ to hopefully prevent miscarriage? Are we contracepting when we wait several days to have relations to build up husband’s count? Are we contracepting when we do the opposite (have relations very often since it can lower his count)? When I’m stressed over having 4 miscarriages & afraid to get pregnant again, so I ask husband to abstain, are we contracepting? When the doctor tells me my body needs to wait a couple cycles before getting pregnant again, so we abstain during our fertile time, are we contracepting? Where is that line? Is it simply if the couple decides they’d rather not be pregnant right now, so they’re not having relations during fertile times? If so, is it only the intent that’s wrong?
NFP is really quite simple. There are no man-made instruments used in my method. I don’t chart to death, its only one mark per day (w/ a sticker to signify fertility), it takes about 5 seconds. If the mucus is a certain way, I’m fertile & I let husband know. If its another way, I’m not fertile & I let husband know. We don’t do anything differently - except perhaps abstain. The most difficult part IMO is discerning God’s will for you as a couple and weighing any just/grave (I’ve seen it both ways, different translations I think) reasons you may have to avoid pregnancy.
For my part, I’m sure God does not necessarily intend for us to have relations every time we’re fertile - married or not. I’m also sure that God does not mind us using the cycles He gave us to prevent heartache and possible harm. God is a loving god who wants the best for His people. It is up to the individual couple to discern God’s will for them. If they disregard God’s will in using NFP, they are abusing NFP. That doesn’t make NFP evil, immoral, or wrong - it makes THEM wrong. NFP is not inherently wrong, or else the Cathechism wouldn’t allow it for just/grave reasons. It can be misused, but then again almost everything can be misused - even the most innocent things.
Where do you draw the line with abstaining equalling contraception? I’m not having relations right now, so I am abstaining, but I’m not contracepting. When I had relations last, I wasn’t fertile, so was I contracepting? If I’m tired or my husband is tired while I’m fertile and we abstain, are we contracepting? If I or my husband are unavailable while I’m fertile are we contracepting? When I was single and non-sexually active was I contracepting? For the 6 weeks after my son was born was I contracepting? Am I contracepting when I’m on ‘pelvic rest’ to hopefully prevent miscarriage? Are we contracepting when we wait several days to have relations to build up husband’s count? Are we contracepting when we do the opposite (have relations very often since it can lower his count)? When I’m stressed over having 4 miscarriages & afraid to get pregnant again, so I ask husband to abstain, are we contracepting? When the doctor tells me my body needs to wait a couple cycles before getting pregnant again, so we abstain during our fertile time, are we contracepting? Where is that line? Is it simply if the couple decides they’d rather not be pregnant right now, so they’re not having relations during fertile times? If so, is it only the intent that’s wrong?
NFP is really quite simple. There are no man-made instruments used in my method. I don’t chart to death, its only one mark per day (w/ a sticker to signify fertility), it takes about 5 seconds. If the mucus is a certain way, I’m fertile & I let husband know. If its another way, I’m not fertile & I let husband know. We don’t do anything differently - except perhaps abstain. The most difficult part IMO is discerning God’s will for you as a couple and weighing any just/grave (I’ve seen it both ways, different translations I think) reasons you may have to avoid pregnancy.
For my part, I’m sure God does not necessarily intend for us to have relations every time we’re fertile - married or not. I’m also sure that God does not mind us using the cycles He gave us to prevent heartache and possible harm. God is a loving god who wants the best for His people. It is up to the individual couple to discern God’s will for them. If they disregard God’s will in using NFP, they are abusing NFP. That doesn’t make NFP evil, immoral, or wrong - it makes THEM wrong. NFP is not inherently wrong, or else the Cathechism wouldn’t allow it for just/grave reasons. It can be misused, but then again almost everything can be misused - even the most innocent things.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
Actually, since menopause is a natural cycle in a woman’s life, it does not break natural law. Its just a permanent infertile cycle in a woman’s life, much like pre-puberty, pregnancy, and certain times during the month in an ovulating woman’s life.
Effectiveness has nothing to do with being open to life nor morality. Abstinence is 100% effective, so is that considered immoral as well? NFP is open to life b/c nothing is altered in the marital act - not before, after, or during the act. There is no separation of the unity nor is there any change in the natural behavior of the act thereby not altering the procreative aspect either. The same cannot be said of any of the forms of contraception. All forms of contraception alter the body (procreative function) or unity (skin-to-skin) or both.
F
foolishmortal
Guest
With a condom or diaphragm, nothing is being forced. I still think NFP is technically OK by a technicality. Abstaining in infertile times is not contraception as it would be pointless to have intercourse with childbearing as the primary purpose. Having sex then defeats its primary purpose. Maybe the primary purpose technically is not a dogma (I don’t know), but it’s reason in agreement with faith. You can take out the reason and say that, if you can’t have a deeper relationship, then technically, you can do it. The same argument is used for contraception. Since you can’t help yourself, the world says to use a condom or something. I’m not saying all who use it can’t help themselves, but i think it’s a backdoor for those who might resort to contraception.
Marriage is for having children. You have to have kids if you’re married, so marriage isn’t an end unto itself. It’s two complimentary parts of a oneness coming together to make a life, like The Father and The Son’s love begetting The Holy Spirit, I think, except a baby isn’t begetted.
Marriage is for having children. You have to have kids if you’re married, so marriage isn’t an end unto itself. It’s two complimentary parts of a oneness coming together to make a life, like The Father and The Son’s love begetting The Holy Spirit, I think, except a baby isn’t begetted.
P
Pug
Guest
What about Josephite marriages? They don’t procreate.
F
Florida_mom
Guest
I know that–I was making a point with budgie since she claims NFP is contraception and intercourse purposefully without possibility of children is against church teaching.
IOW NFP alters nothing and her opinions are invalidated by her very incorrect explanations of a process that is nothing short of grossing her out as she compares the observations to masturbation.
So if NFP is evil—sex during menopause/post-menopause is evil when the egg supply has been depleted and any future engagement in the marital act will not produce any children.
B
budgie2
Guest
Look, I agree with you that NFP does not alter the sexual act. But when I did my ethics course there are different ways in which you judge a sin. This is accepted by the Church by the way and is Catholic dogma. Intention, act itself (ie. sex or contraception), consequence and purpose. NFP does not alter the act itself but could be judged immoral based on 1. the intention if it is to prevent a child being created 2. the consequence which could be to seriously or partially reduce family size and 3. purpose. I can’t remember what purpose means.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
Actually, even a condom or diaphram is forcing the body into an unnatural state. Use of a diaphram or condom puts a physical barrier between husband & wife in the most intimate way possible. Relations are better skin-to-skin than w/ a barrier - just ask almost any guy!
Relations are also meant to take place skin-to-skin intimately. Therefore, to separate the skin-to-skin unity is to force the body into an unnatural state for marital relations.NFP isn’t OK by a technicality, it is OK b/c it does absolutely nothing to separate the procreative or unitive aspect of marital relations. The procreative aspect of marital relations does not mean that every time a couple has relations they must be wanting a child from that union. What it means is that the couple must not alter the natural act in any way to prevent conception. They also must be willing to accept that if a child is conceived at any time it is welcomed into the family. The unitive aspect is primarily a spiritual union, but the physical union is important as well. Each party in marital relations must give fully of him or herself with nothing held back. That is the sum of the procreative & unitive aspects of marital relations. If no relations are had, there can be nothing held back b/c no act is present. If relations are had, neither party has any moral right to with-hold a portion of themselves from the other.
I think people are making NFP much more complicated and intricate than it really is. Yes, I know when I’m fertile - that in & of itself is not a sin. Yes, my husband & I (hopefully through prayer on at least one of our parts) can decide to abstain to avoid pregnancy. That in & of itself is not sinful either - its always a married couple’s choice to have relations. God doesn’t force us at any particular time. Yes, sometimes (such as when a woman is fertile) one party may want relations more than during other phases in the cycle. However, there are countless neutral reasons (ie ones not necessarily planned in advance or discussed) for a couple to not have relations (separation by travel/job/etc, illness, medical, etc). The ability to use these natural phases/cycles to their benefit (both spiritually and physically) is a God-given gift. Just as it is a God-given gift to have sexuality in our lives to begin with. It is also our responsibility to use these God-given gifts to the best of our ability to the glory of God. Each of us have different limits - that’s why we as a couple w/ God’s help, have to discern for ourselves (not from a list) where our limits are for children and/or abstinence.
Not all marriages are blessed with children. Therefore, while married couples need to be open to life, it is NOT a requirement that a good Catholic couple have children (through no fault of their own). Its kind of rude to imply that couples that aren’t blessed w/ fertility are somehow less Catholic or moral b/c they lack children. Even sterility prior to marriage does not negate a marriage. Only intentional sterility (through not having relations, using contraception, or purposefully sterilizing oneself) can negate/nullify a marriage prior to its inception. If a couple finds out after their marriage that one party is sterile, the couple is legally and canonically married. If one party must have their reproductive organs removed and/or damaged as treatment for another medical problem, the marriage is still valid. If a couple finds out that pregnancy could end the woman’s life, they have an entirely valid reason to abstain throughout their marriage. It will be difficult, but it is entirely acceptable.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
How can NFP meet the critera for being immoral based on your ethics class if the CCC clearly states that for just/grave/serious reasons spacing and/or planning children is morally acceptable? Would that same line of thinking indicate that staying single b/c you don’t want children is sinful?
BTW where did you take this ethics course? Does it speak directly about NFP or was it more general? FWIW I’m not doubting your sincerity, but I am doubting the application.
F
Florida_mom
Guest
It seems that your post contradicts earlier positions on NFP when you claimed it does alter the act.
That aside—
Your ethics course seems to validate the catechism in that the catechism doesn’t permit NFP to be used in those circumstances except for just reasons.
The church allows many things within guidelines. It isn’t to say they shouldn’t be allowed if there are misguided individuals.
You don’t deny a privilege just b/c some people may do bad with it. Should I be deined the eucharist b/c a percentage of folks don’t go to confession? No.
Should I be denied an opportunity to plan my fertility based on health and life circumstance WITHIN the guidelines of the church b/c a few couples don’t ever want children b/c they just don’t want them and use NFP to achieve that? No.
It also should be noted that NFP is not just for pregnancy spacing–but it is used to produce children as well.
Also–I was told by our instructor this was the case–not sure on where she got the information–but NFP families tend to be more open to life and have families of all sizes.
In fact–it is difficult for NFP teachers when they have a brood of 6 or more children to be taken seriously by newlyweds b/c they think it is a sign that NFP is a failure. The truth is–the children are wanted and accepted outcomes of their marital union.
I would say that it is likely the NFP couples have larger families “by choice” and not “by accident” than their non-NFP practicing counterparts.
P
Pug
Guest
Ah! I know what you mean. You mean here from the CCC, for example:
See, three things. I tend to use the words “means”, “ends”, and circumstances. You are right on target to try to use these to analyze your moral actions.
Hmmm. I figure the circumstances surrounding the use of NFP to avoid is exactly what NFP users talk about, how they think to themselves, “what are our circumstances as a family right now, so do we have good reason to avoid?” If those circumstances don’t line up, they will/ought not choose to avoid.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Very good point - people keep forgetting in this thread the key factor that unity and procreation are the primary ends of the conjugal act specifically - the ends of marriage are broader. This is key to why NFP is not considered contraceptive - it doesn’t affect the conjugal act. If a couple is using NFP to avoid pregnancy, the thing that actually prevents pregnancy is the periodic abstinence they choose to undergo, and no one objects to that.
Everyone should take a second look at the Casti Connubii quote in post #38 - the pope never even uses the word “marriage” but refers to the “begetting of children” as the primary purpose of “the conjugal act.” (Obviously, Catholic teaching does however mandate that the conjugal act is morally permissible only within marriage)
The aspects of moral theology to which you’re referring are indeed matters of dogma. That said, no offense, but you’re making all kinds of errors here. You’re making elementary mistakes which include even sloppy terminology! Let me help you:
You mention four sources of the moral act:
Intention
“Act itself”
“Consequence”
Purpose
I know the teaching you’re referring to, but you’ve got it all wrong. First of all, the “act itself” is comprised of all three elements. The proper term for what you meant by that is the “object” of the moral act. Secondly, “intention” and “purpose” are basically the same, and the third aspect of the moral act - the circumstances involved - involve more than just the act’s consequences. Here is my authoritative source:
CCC 1750:
Paragraphs 1751-1754 continue to describe these elements in more detail; they refer to them, respectively, as an act’s object, intention, and circumstances. I encourage you to review this section of the Catechism:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm
All three constitutive elements must be moral - or at least morally neutral - for the act to be good. The object of the act is objective; it is the good to which the act is directed. The intention, by contrast, is subjective: i.e. it resides within the acting subject.
Correct. The object of the act of using NFP is measuring a woman’s fertility. That’s acceptable, so if the act of using NFP has a good intention and justifying circumstances, then it’s morally acceptable.
Let’s set this matter to rest right now. There are two possibilities that you’re inaccurately lumping together with your point #1:
a) A couple uses NFP by default, or haphazardly, because they either intend never to have children or they are avoiding pregnancy for unjust reasons.
If that is the case, then yes, they are sinning, but that’s NOT because NFP (read: the object of their act) is immoral, but rather because they have a sinful intention.
b) A couple is temporarily seeking to avoid pregnancy for just/grave reasons.
This is entirely morally acceptable according to the Catholic Church. As BiologyBrain put it:
On to your second possibility:
Again, the consequences of an act are only part of that act’s circumstances. Aside from your terminology issues, you’ve got it right, though. The use of NFP to avoid pregnancy must be justified by proportionately grave reasons (i.e. circumstances).
That’s because you’ve already covered it under your possibility #1.
Anyway, I hope we can come to an agreement. Yes, the use of NFP could be immoral if not justified by proportionately grave circumstances and/or if done with an immoral intention. But the intention is subjective, and the circumstances vary from couple to couple.
In an objective sense, then, we can make sweeping blanket statements only about the object of the act of measuring a married woman’s fertility. And the moral status of the object of that act is not in dispute - therefore the use of NFP to know when to abstain to avoid pregnancy is moral if circumstances justify its use. End of story.
R
rpp
Guest
Budgie, using your logic, the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph committed a lifetime of very grave sins as they praqctised perfect abstinence in their marriage. Yet the Church disagree with you so strongly that she has stated as doctrine that the Blessed Virgin Marry was free of all sin, both Original and actual. Budgie, you are wrong to claim that abstinence in marriage, whether periodic or perpetual, in inherently against the “natural law” and therefore gravely sinful.
B
budgie2
Guest
Thanks for your answers although it’s not my friend. Beside, intention, purpose, action and circumstances there are other things I don’t like about NFP after doing a bit of research. Some organisations like the Couple to Couples league act like sex police. They ring couples up to find out why they’ve had sex. They also ask couples to state when they have sex on their charts which is an invasion of sexual privacy. I would have greater privacy if I used a fertility monitor or learnt it at home. Condom manufacturers don’t ring people up to find out why they’ve not used a condom or monitor their use. The reason NFP has got such a low pregnancy rate is because they’re policing it, and I’m talking about people like John and Sheila Kippley.
Art of Natural Family Planning pg. 90 by John and Sheila Kippley
“For example, one couple told us they understood the method perfectly and were using it to postpone pregnancy; yet their chart showed coitus during their fertile period. A quick telephone check revealed that they had turned the system backwards and were abstaining during their infertile time and having coitus during their fertile period. (By some chance the woman did not become pregnant in that cycle).”
I’m sorry but a couple should be made aware of fertile and infertile times only and nobody should have to write down when they have sex. It breaks the exclusivity of the marriage bond.
Art of Natural Family Planning pg. 90 by John and Sheila Kippley
“For example, one couple told us they understood the method perfectly and were using it to postpone pregnancy; yet their chart showed coitus during their fertile period. A quick telephone check revealed that they had turned the system backwards and were abstaining during their infertile time and having coitus during their fertile period. (By some chance the woman did not become pregnant in that cycle).”
I’m sorry but a couple should be made aware of fertile and infertile times only and nobody should have to write down when they have sex. It breaks the exclusivity of the marriage bond.
K
kage_ar
Guest
Budgie - are you willing to be honest and admit that your “ethics” class taught you things that are directly opposed to the official teaching of the Church?
The ideas you hold about NFP seem to border on the fringe - out there with bigfoot and green lizard people.
Maybe if you stop listening to whatever anti-Church things you are listening, start listening to solid Catholic teaching, it will help?
The ideas you hold about NFP seem to border on the fringe - out there with bigfoot and green lizard people.
Maybe if you stop listening to whatever anti-Church things you are listening, start listening to solid Catholic teaching, it will help?
0
06convert
Guest
Birth control isn’t a sin, contraceptives are.
NFP allows a couple to intellectually look at the womans fertility. Then use the knowledge of how her fertilty works to make the determination to achieve or delay pregnancy. This decision should be taken with care and prayer and should not be for selfish reasons. If NFP is abused, it too can be sinful.
God designed a woman to have times of fertility and times of infertility during a woman’s regular meunstral cycle. Educating ourselves to understand these times works with God’s natural plan. God wants us to have children and raise them to be good Christians to better the world. But, at the same time, God created us to be intelligent human beings capable of choosing when we feel is the best time to have children. NFP allows us to accomplish this without putting anything unnatural between God and ourselves and to be open to God’s will at anytime.
Contraceptives take God out of the equation, which is why it’s sinful. God knew us before we were formed in the womb. He had a plan for us before we were concieved. So just because contraceptives are used before conception doesn’t make them right.
NFP allows a couple to intellectually look at the womans fertility. Then use the knowledge of how her fertilty works to make the determination to achieve or delay pregnancy. This decision should be taken with care and prayer and should not be for selfish reasons. If NFP is abused, it too can be sinful.
God designed a woman to have times of fertility and times of infertility during a woman’s regular meunstral cycle. Educating ourselves to understand these times works with God’s natural plan. God wants us to have children and raise them to be good Christians to better the world. But, at the same time, God created us to be intelligent human beings capable of choosing when we feel is the best time to have children. NFP allows us to accomplish this without putting anything unnatural between God and ourselves and to be open to God’s will at anytime.
Contraceptives take God out of the equation, which is why it’s sinful. God knew us before we were formed in the womb. He had a plan for us before we were concieved. So just because contraceptives are used before conception doesn’t make them right.
B
BiologyBrain
Guest
Contrary to what you’re making this out to be, this is actually an example of a caring teacher trying to help a couple that obviously told them they were having problems and/or wanted guidance. Letting an instructor look at your charts (complete w/ notes about coitus on certain days), is not an invasion of privacy - instead it can be a learning experience. In this instance, the teachers knew the couple was trying to avoid pregnancy, but noticed that they were not following the rules for that purpose. In order to avoid an unjust accusation that NFP doesn’t work, the instructor made a call (obviously the couple had provided their phone number for a purpose) and clarified the situation. Also, you should also note that just b/c the instructors commented on this instance in their book doesn’t mean that’s the norm for ALL NFP practicioners. Yes, helpful instructors do help keep the NFP success rate (for avoiding & conceiving) high, but not b/c they ‘police’ it. Instead, the instructor helps the couple actually understand the method and the woman’s body. Then the instructor helps the couple implement rules based on the couple’s preference (avoidance or conception). The instructors are available any time the couple is having questions or uncertainty. There is NO negative association between the instructors and the couples - contrary to what you’re trying to present.
Just for your information, writing down days when you have coitus helps w/ dating the pregnancy (mine was right on the money based on my ovulation & our relations dates, while my doc’s best guess from ultrasound & such was off by a week or more) as well as understanding the following days mucus patterns. There is nothing that breaks the exclusivity of the marriage bond b/c it is willingly shared, but not in intimate detail. Instead, in my system, I simply write an “I” in the block for the day we’ve had relations. I don’t put how many times, where, what position, etc in there, just simply that pregnancy IS a possibility starting on day X b/c we had relations. Marking this down can also help figure out any fertility issues that may be present and preventing the couple from conceiving. A good NFP doctor can read a chart and assess the woman’s hormonal balance, overall health, stress, and make recommendations all w/o subjecting her to an exam (invasive and/or uncomfortable). What other means is there to get that kind of result? I absolutely LOVE NFP b/c it has helped me continue 2 pregnancies, figure out my hormonal imbalances (leading to worsening endometriosis & PCOS), and given me the ability to know when I’m able to conceive! It has also helped me get care from a doctor over 4 hours away all w/o invasive testing and examinations to care for these issues. It has also kept me from being forced to take birth control to ‘solve’ my problems. Seems like a winning situation/solution to me!
FWIW no one here is claiming that anyone has to do NFP if they disagree with it in any way. The main point we’re trying to make is that you shouldn’t judge it as immoral w/o having clear facts (preferably from speaking to people who’ve actually done it &/or teach a system). We’re trying to prevent falsehoods from being perpetuated based on ignorance and not ill-will. If you are more comfortable w/ your calendar/rhythm method - that’s entirely up to you. However, simply b/c you are more comfortable w/ your method gives you no right to claim mine is immoral - especially when you don’t fully understand the method and/or it is acceptable by the Church as per the CCC!
R
rpp
Guest
I am uncertain which of the theological term this is an example of, “invincible ignorance” or “willful ignorance”.
Whatever this is, it certainly does not represent authentic Catholic morality.
- Status