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

[Vico]

Originally Posted by PassingThru

So, to stick with our agreed point of contention, ie The Nature Of The Act. You are right, in as much as you limit the time frame to sexual intercourse. I would also contend that if you push that time frame open a bit, it is not the individual act that is altered, but the entire sexual cycle. I could just as easily make the argument that having sex during a womans fertile point is the MOST natural time to have sex. After all, it is when women WANT to have sex the most, which is quite natural. Church teaching is that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sex (technically the entire point of it) for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts, period. Well, I disagree. I would contend that is also altering the sexual act, rendering it unnatural. Am I right? Maybe so. But I know I can not stand up and say one is definitely NOT an alteration while one is. They are different, to be sure. But if you narrow your view to only allow one predetermined definition in, then you can rationalize any view. (For NFP or ABC)

Above you said "Church teaching is that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sex (technically the entire point of it) for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts, period."

You are refering to sexual behavior rather than a specific act here. The Church does not teach that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sexual behavior for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts. You are correct that natural family planning is altering natural reproduction when considered over a period of time, but it is altered behavior. In the previous encyclical I references Pope Pius XII wrote:

"Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

However, we accepted the assumption that the use of artificial vs natural methods were the only differences between the hypothetical couples, and that they were equal on:

"1. based on sufficient and reliable moral grounds," and
"3. willing to accept and bring up the child that is born".

So we must consider only that they "2. do not offend against the nature of the act". Abstinance does not offend against the nature of the act, whereas artifical birth control does.

[Tracy Spenst]

Passing Thru,

I'm going to throw in another thought on this.

Now, I'm guessing you're a man, so maybe this won't have occurred to you. As a woman, there is a HUGE difference between NFP and ABC. From a practical point of view, there is no type of ABC that does not pose serious health risks.

The Pill--a confirmed link between that and breast cancer has now been established by a Federal study (look up Nat'l Catholic Register's article on it). It is also works as an abortive device approx. 20-30% of the time. And, yes, women still get pregnant on the Pill.

Tubal ligation--Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, huge increase in probability for hysterectomy, women also report feeling a loss of their womanhood. And women still can get pregnant. A doctor friend of ours said the maddest woman he ever had in the ER was a woman who'd had a tubal five years before. She came in due to vomiting, etc. only to find out she was pregnant--with twins.

Condom--danger of latex issues and possibility of pregnancy. For a woman who would be in life-threatening danger by getting pregnant, what kind of husband takes that kind of chance?

Vasectomy--As a wife, I refused to even consider this option when my husband suggested it. My whole gut said, "No" and we weren't even Catholic at the time. And I have to wonder at the huge increase in prostate cancer we now see--think there might be a link there?

Now, NFP is a practice that both husband and wife must participate in. Although there are couples who use NFP with an ABC mentality, that's not the norm. Most of the time there is discussion between them about abstaining. It is a mutual decision.

For me, as a woman, switching to NFP made a big difference. My body is now treasured for the wonder of creation that it is. We no longer tinker with it like it was a car. My husband loves me enough to abstain because of my high risk status with pregnancy.

What about it being "unnatural" to abstain when a woman is fertile and, therefore, "in the mood?" Well, I have plenty of urges from my flesh that I suppress because they aren't healthy. I have thoughts I immediately reject because they're sinful. So what if I suppress my "mood" because this is not the time to seek pregnancy? And, btw, how often do women participate without being "in the mood" because their husbands' are? Is that unnatural or an act of love?

The theological points have already been explained to you, so I won't go into those again. But I do think you will have to realize that there has been a lot of thought, discussion and prayer on the part of the popes and bishops of the Catholic Church about this over the course of the last 2000 years. Certainly a lot more since 1930 when the Church of England first lifted it's ban on ABC for married couples in desperate circumstances. What Protestant denomination can say the same? There are some--and they are largely dismissed by other Protestants because they don't even accept the use of NFP. After all, you can find the use of NFP in Scripture, but you'll not find a shred of support for ABC of any kind.

~Tracy

[PassingThru]

Thanks Tracy,

Trust me, I have no beef whatsoever with your opinions. This shows how happy you are to have NFP in your life, which is great. You will notice, I am not against NFP in any way, shape or form.

There are, however, lots of issues around ABC, but I have yet to figure out how these arguments apply as witnessed in previous postings. About the only thing I disagree with in your statements about NFP, is that couples using NFP dont have a "contraceptive" mentality. I will leave your thoughts on this to yourself, but a common defense made of NFP is that they somehow feel different about its effects vs ABC, and this is unfounded. You may feel different about its uses, which is wonderful. But you have no insight into how others feel, and making broad accusations is not defensible or charitable.

Bottom line, I am happy you find joy in NFP. None of this helps explain any of the previous issues.

[PassingThru]

Originally Posted by una fides

When one has a vasectomy he has already altered the act. Yes, seemingly normal intercourse may take place, but the act itself is rendered sterile during fertile periods through an artificial means. Again the issue is whether one can artificially alter the marital act so as to avoid conception. You have not provided any proof that abstaining from sex during fertile periods artificially alters the marital act.

One can also abstain from sex all the time. That too does not artificially alter the marital act since one is free to abstain as long as with just intentions. To have the intention to avoid conception is not evil if one has serious reason to do so. However, to artificially alter the natural marital act itself to avoid conception cannot be justified even if one has a serious reason to do so because it is intrinsically evil, for man does not have a right to tinker with God's design for conception.

God designed the a woman's body to have a cycle and taking advantage of that natural God-created cycle to conceive or deffer conception for a serious reason is not evil. To artificially alter God's design for the marital act is evil.

If at this point you aren't completely convinced, stew over it and pray, and I will do the same with what you've written, and we'll see if we can make any further progress.

I dont think we can communicate on this issue which is fine. I will try one more time.

You keep repeating "alter the marital act" over and over. I AGREE. ABC, IN SOME WAY SHAPE OR FORM, PHYSICALLY ALTERS SOME ASPECT OF A MAN, WOMAN, OR BOTH. This is the definition of ABC. I get it. You and I both agree, that this can be used to say things like, alter, un-natural, gods design, etc.

Now quid pro quo. You have avoided with great completeness any attempts to answer to the HOWs and WHYs that I have brought up. Please answer these direct questions as best you can:
NFP is more than a series of individual choices to abstain. Y/N?
Successful, long term practice of NFP in some way alters/changes sex between a couple. Y/N?
Abstinence is not intrinsically good. It can be used improperly. Y/N?

I also asked this previously. Please respond, as its answer could easily end our disagreement:

Your contention is that each act of sex, as long as it is unaltered, is permissible. (Within the range of our discussion, no throwing in rape, abuse, etc) This alone satisfies 2) Do Not Offend Against The Nature Of The Act. If this is your position, please confirm.

I profess there is MUCH MORE behind meeting that standard than simply not using a rubber. I assume you are not interested in these matters, as you keep going back to "unaltered marital act". Tell me if this is accurate, or not. If it is not, TELL US WHY!

[PassingThru]

Originally Posted by Vico

Above you said "Church teaching is that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sex (technically the entire point of it) for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts, period."

You are refering to sexual behavior rather than a specific act here. The Church does not teach that we can intentionally alter this natural aspect of sexual behavior for indefinite amounts of time with no negative impacts. You are correct that natural family planning is altering natural reproduction when considered over a period of time, but it is altered behavior. In the previous encyclical I references Pope Pius XII wrote:

"Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

However, we accepted the assumption that the use of artificial vs natural methods were the only differences between the hypothetical couples, and that they were equal on:

"1. based on sufficient and reliable moral grounds," and
"3. willing to accept and bring up the child that is born".

So we must consider only that they "2. do not offend against the nature of the act". Abstinance does not offend against the nature of the act, whereas artifical birth control does.

Trying my best, thanks for you response Vico.

So what you are saying, is that NFP does alter this natural aspect of reproduction, but you are putting it in the "behavior" bucket, so it does not apply? I guess you can do that, but that doesn't do much to answer the question. This is the same point I am trying to make to Una Fides. If all that is needed is to "fulfill" this requirement is to not use ABC, well, then, that is the end of the discussion. To me, there are OTHER things one can do to "offend the nature of the act". If you will write off all possible ways to commit this offense outside of ABC, we have nothing further to discuss. To me, that is plugging your ears and going "la-la-la-la".

I dont mean for that to sound as rude as it does. It just doesn't seem like anyone wants to have discussion on merits, and just reverts to "well, this is Truth". Again, I am not saying one is good or bad, better or worse.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by PassingThru

Trying my best, thanks for you response Vico.

So what you are saying, is that NFP does alter this natural aspect of reproduction, but you are putting it in the "behavior" bucket, so it does not apply? I guess you can do that, but that doesn't do much to answer the question. This is the same point I am trying to make to Una Fides. If all that is needed is to "fulfill" this requirement is to not use ABC, well, then, that is the end of the discussion. To me, there are OTHER things one can do to "offend the nature of the act". If you will write off all possible ways to commit this offense outside of ABC, we have nothing further to discuss. To me, that is plugging your ears and going "la-la-la-la".

I dont mean for that to sound as rude as it does. It just doesn't seem like anyone wants to have discussion on merits, and just reverts to "well, this is Truth". Again, I am not saying one is good or bad, better or worse.

You said: "So what you are saying, is that NFP does alter this natural aspect of reproduction, but you are putting it in the "behavior" bucket, so it does not apply?"

It does apply to the overall issue, and that is why I gave the quote from Pope Pius XII. But it is not a difference between natural and artificial birth control. In responding, I've keep to your scenario. If we are done with that, I can try to list all the factors. But I think it is not fair of you to set the requirements for the discussion and then not hold to them as I am doing. (Please don't read this as an angry remark.) I appreciate the difficulty of this issue to describe. Can I ask if you read the Papal Encyclical that I referenced (Pope Pius XII)? http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

I am listing two distinct components to conjugal relations (as does Pope Pius XII): right and use. Right is granting the right to each other, use is exercising the right.

1. Valid marriage: exclusive, perpetual, and open to children, granting conjugal rights to each other, marital right claimable only when not uncharitible or sinful, Church approved marriage with no impediments, sterility acceptable, pre-existing and perpetual inability to consummate invalidates marriage *
2. Conjugal relations - use: respectful and dignified, natural act only
3. Conjugal relations - non-use: abstinance is permissible when mutual and for a time and with sufficient and reliable moral grounds **
-----
* It is possible for a marriage to be ratified but never consummated. In that case is it possible for it to be declared null.
** sufficient and reliable moral grounds: willingness of both parties, ability to practice continence, unselfish reason (social, eugenic, economic, or medical). Pope Pius XII:
"Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles."

[PaulinVA]

Passing thru said, in red: Are you saying it is unnatural and altered for someone to deny their impulses and refuse to have sex?Yes, that is what I am saying. Again, using what I think is an artificial way to look at each individual instance and ignoring all other factors, you are right.

So, this is it, then. It is natural to follow your impulses and unnatural and artificial to not follow your impulses?

Well, if that's the case, my life is pretty much unnatural and artifical. This morning when the alarm rang, I really wanted to turn over and go to sleep. That was my impulse, but I denied it. I then drove to work. I had this impulse to honk and curse at the guy in the parking garage taking five minutes to back his huge SUV into a space, but I denied it and kept silent.

Our lives are full of instances where we deny our base impulses and do something else. In fact, having bad "impulse control" is a problem for some kids.

Your argument that people who practice NFP are stifling impulses and that is bad does not hold water. You deny impulses all of the time. After one gets to a certain age, you are expected to develop impulse control and not do everything that pops into your mind. I would argue that impulse control, in a civilized society, is what is natural.

[Tracy Spenst]

Originally Posted by PassingThru

About the only thing I disagree with in your statements about NFP, is that couples using NFP dont have a "contraceptive" mentality. I will leave your thoughts on this to yourself, but a common defense made of NFP is that they somehow feel different about its effects vs ABC, and this is unfounded. You may feel different about its uses, which is wonderful. But you have no insight into how others feel, and making broad accusations is not defensible or charitable.

So, how does this differ from your own assumption that couples using NFP are using it with a contraceptive mentality? You also are making an assumption. You are judging the thoughts of couples based on their action of using NFP. Upon what basis are you saying they have a contraceptive mentality? Just because they have determined that at this time that having another child is more than they can handle?

If you're approaching this from the perspective that since both couples decide they only want two children so each uses a method to avoid that, I believe you're asking why the couple using NFP is correct while the other is not.

This is not a question of method, it's a question of motivation and willingness to obey the commands of God given through His Church (which, as a Lutheran, you don't accept, so you're trying to argue with something you have not background or belief in).

The Catholic Church teaches that for someone to refuse to be open to children without serious reason is a sin. The method, in this instance, is a sidepoint. NFP is for those couples who have serious reason to avoid pregnancy. It is not to be used selfishly. Just because there are couples who do so says nothing about the method itself. And it doesn't change the fact that using ABC is a sin, no matter what the circumstances.

~Tracy

[PassingThru]

Originally Posted by PaulinVA

Passing thru said, in red: Are you saying it is unnatural and altered for someone to deny their impulses and refuse to have sex?Yes, that is what I am saying. Again, using what I think is an artificial way to look at each individual instance and ignoring all other factors, you are right.

So, this is it, then. It is natural to follow your impulses and unnatural and artificial to not follow your impulses?

Well, if that's the case, my life is pretty much unnatural and artifical. This morning when the alarm rang, I really wanted to turn over and go to sleep. That was my impulse, but I denied it. I then drove to work. I had this impulse to honk and curse at the guy in the parking garage taking five minutes to back his huge SUV into a space, but I denied it and kept silent.

Our lives are full of instances where we deny our base impulses and do something else. In fact, having bad "impulse control" is a problem for some kids.

Your argument that people who practice NFP are stifling impulses and that is bad does not hold water. You deny impulses all of the time. After one gets to a certain age, you are expected to develop impulse control and not do everything that pops into your mind. I would argue that impulse control, in a civilized society, is what is natural.

Paulin, you are absolutely right. I didn't bother in my response to edit it to more appropriately reflect my thoughts. I DO NOT believe that simply denying an impulse is wrong. Let me more accurately reflect my opinion. I believe that systematically following NFP does alter the nature/effect/intention of sex between couples. That does not make it wrong, and that is not my belief. But the contention that abstaining is acceptable, therefore NFP can not, in any way, alter the "natural" aspect of sex, is dishonest. I still have not heard one reasonable explanation how this can be. Certainly, many if not most instances are perfectly fine. My point is that NFP can have this same negative effect. Which leads me right back to how it is the couple and how they practice/believe/feel/intend that is the important aspect whether the acts are acceptable or not.

I think people are taking this as an attack on the use and intent of NFP. IT IS NOT. I am trying to establish that NFP has the potential to be this alteration that some are saying is categorically impossible. I think otherwise.

[PaulinVA]

Originally Posted by PassingThru

I think people are taking this as an attack on the use and intent of NFP. IT IS NOT. I am trying to establish that NFP has the potential to be this alteration that some are saying is categorically impossible. I think otherwise.

Well, the dance between members of a couple about whether to have sex on a given day is indeed natural. The act itself is the same whether NFP is used or not.

I think you are talking about the overall sexual relationship a couple has. Farankly, there are a lot of reasons you might want to have relations with your spouse but do not. NFP (fertile period) is one of them. Children, a good movie on TV, getting up early the next day, already showered and not taking one the next morning, feeling unwell, feeling too tense, etc, etc etc all could lead to not having relations any given day.

NFP is just one reason. It doesn't alter the over sexual relationship - it just adds another consideration to the many considerations already present.

[PassingThru]

Originally Posted by Tracy Spenst

So, how does this differ from your own assumption that couples using NFP are using it with a contraceptive mentality? You also are making an assumption. You are judging the thoughts of couples based on their action of using NFP. Upon what basis are you saying they have a contraceptive mentality? Just because they have determined that at this time that having another child is more than they can handle?Ummm, might be missing why you disagree here... If a couple practices NFP to avoid a pregnancy, isn't that basically the definition?

If you're approaching this from the perspective that since both couples decide they only want two children so each uses a method to avoid that, I believe you're asking why the couple using NFP is correct while the other is not.No, that is not it exactly. We have gotten way past that point, I dont want to go back over all the posts.

This is not a question of method, it's a question of motivation and willingness to obey the commands of God given through His Church (which, as a Lutheran, you don't accept, so you're trying to argue with something you have not background or belief in). I am pretty familiar with its teachings, which is why we are down to discussing one or two very distinct points that define the two. And you are right, I am focusing on things like motivation and willingness. I find they are very, if not more important. So we agree. BTW, are you trying to say I can't discuss because I am not Catholic? Or I am instantly not qualified?

The Catholic Church teaches that for someone to refuse to be open to children without serious reason is a sin. AgreeThe method, in this instance, is a sidepoint. AgreeNFP is for those couples who have serious reason to avoid pregnancy. It is not to be used selfishly. Agree Just because there are couples who do so says nothing about the method itself. Getting closer And it doesn't change the fact that using ABC is a sin, no matter what the circumstances.Actually, mostly agree.

~Tracy

You seem to be quite upset, but I don't think you should be. Like you just said, there is nothing wrong with NFP. And I am not saying ABC is good, or indeed even better. I think you are missing the crux of the discussion.

[PassingThru]

Originally Posted by PaulinVA

Well, the dance between members of a couple about whether to have sex on a given day is indeed natural. The act itself is the same whether NFP is used or not.

I think you are talking about the overall sexual relationship a couple has. Farankly, there are a lot of reasons you might want to have relations with your spouse but do not. NFP (fertile period) is one of them. Children, a good movie on TV, getting up early the next day, already showered and not taking one the next morning, feeling unwell, feeling too tense, etc, etc etc all could lead to not having relations any given day.

NFP is just one reason. It doesn't alter the over sexual relationship - it just adds another consideration to the many considerations already present.

Sounds good to me. So, you would agree with my above assessment:

NFP can not, in any way, alter the natural aspect of sex.

If you do, that is fine. We agree to disagree. I will still be of the mind that NFP is the most sure fire way to stay in good standing with God!
.

[PassingThru]

Originally Posted by Vico

You said: "So what you are saying, is that NFP does alter this natural aspect of reproduction, but you are putting it in the "behavior" bucket, so it does not apply?"

It does apply to the overall issue, and that is why I gave the quote from Pope Pius XII. But it is not a difference between natural and artificial birth control. In responding, I've keep to your scenario. If we are done with that, I can try to list all the factors. But I think it is not fair of you to set the requirements for the discussion and then not hold to them as I am doing. (Please don't read this as an angry remark.) I appreciate the difficulty of this issue to describe. Can I ask if you read the Papal Encyclical that I referenced (Pope Pius XII)? http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

I am listing two distinct components to conjugal relations (as does Pope Pius XII): right and use. Right is granting the right to each other, use is exercising the right.

1. Valid marriage: exclusive, perpetual, and open to children, granting conjugal rights to each other, marital right claimable only when not uncharitible or sinful, Church approved marriage with no impediments, sterility acceptable, pre-existing and perpetual inability to consummate invalidates marriage *
2. Conjugal relations - use: respectful and dignified, natural act only
3. Conjugal relations - non-use: abstinance is permissible when mutual and for a time and with sufficient and reliable moral grounds **
-----
* It is possible for a marriage to be ratified but never consummated. In that case is it possible for it to be declared null.
** sufficient and reliable moral grounds: willingness of both parties, ability to practice continence, unselfish reason (social, eugenic, economic, or medical). Pope Pius XII:
"Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles."

Whew, you are a thorough person!

I did read (some) of your link, including the birth control section. It talks mostly about what we agree on, which is the state of mind and intention of the couple. Which is fine. It seems to run under the assumption that ABC is unnatural (which it is) and NFP is natural. I still see nothing to explain how NFP is categorically natural, or how it accounts for anything outside of the specific sexual act. It basically makes the assumption and runs with it. Most of your post are things we agree on right down the line. The only thing you put in that I have a potential disagreement with is the bolded section "natural act only". And I dont think I have unfairly limited my question. I am asking how you can be sure NFP does not alter natural act in a broader sense. I think by its very nature it can. (Not that it WILL, but it CAN). You say no.

I am starting to think that there is no explanation for my question. Which is perfectly fine. It becomes a matter of faith, which is great. That is how I have viewed it for quite some time. Trying to put some form of logic or reason to it could likely be a futile effort.

However, I must say that I think this lack of a sound, rational, or logical reason is probably what is destroying the resistance to ABC. There is a reason that such a huge majority of Catholics (and non Catholics for that matter) have rejected it. I don't mean for that to sound like an attack, I mean it with sincerity. If people could understand WHY it is different, they may change their minds. With the Church professing it is 99.9% effective, they are basically broadcasting "NFP is the most effective contraceptive ever!" and I think that lowers peoples resistance to ABC. Just my theory, of course.

[Tracy Spenst]

Originally Posted by PassingThru

You seem to be quite upset, but I don't think you should be. Like you just said, there is nothing wrong with NFP. And I am not saying ABC is good, or indeed even better. I think you are missing the crux of the discussion.

One of the great drawbacks of the 'Net is that people are not able to see/hear one another in such discussions. Actually, I'm not upset at all except that this discussion keeps going in the same circles.

BTW, are you trying to say I can't discuss because I am not Catholic? Or I am instantly not qualified?

Obviously another instance where you cannot "hear" me, so you're making an assumption. No, I didn't mean that at all. What I'm pointing out is that as Catholics we accept the authority of the Church on these matters. As a Lutheran, you don't accept that authority or you would be Catholic! .

Apparently I am not the person to talk about this with you, so I will bow out and let others figure out the issue with you.

~Tracy

[una fides]

Originally Posted by Tracy Spenst

What about it being "unnatural" to abstain when a woman is fertile and, therefore, "in the mood?" Well, I have plenty of urges from my flesh that I suppress because they aren't healthy. I have thoughts I immediately reject because they're sinful. So what if I suppress my "mood" because this is not the time to seek pregnancy? And, btw, how often do women participate without being "in the mood" because their husbands' are? Is that unnatural or an act of love?

Tracy,

Good post. This part in particular is a good explanation of how it is not "unnatural" in the same way to suppress urges as it is to alter the marital act to render it unable to produce conception when conception could otherwise occur. Altering the body is entirely different than suppressing urges for a greater good (i.e. you have a grave reason for avoiding intercourse during fertile periods).

The easy response is "trust the Church," which Scripture tells us is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) but for our non-Catholic friend here, unfortunately he is not yet there on his journey. So in the mean time, hopefully these responses will provide enough to understand the why's behind the Church's decision.