Help me defend NFP against this article


#1

johnthebaptist.us/sbw/books/rjmi%20catholic%20books/br14_nfp_contraception.htm

The above site tries to argue that NFP is no different from contraception. I was hoping that instead of just restating the official teachings, that people here could at least quote and argue parts from the article itself. Also the article states that Pope Pius XI infallibly condemned NFP (starting here johnthebaptist.us/sbw/books/rjmi%20catholic%20books/br14_nfp_contraception.htm#_Toc161496451)

Also get this (johnthebaptist.us/sbw/books/rjmi%20catholic%20books/br14_nfp_contraception.htm#_Toc161496476)

“God had originally created the sexual act between man and woman to be no more pleasing to the flesh then a handshake and childbirth was not to be painful. The emphasis on the flesh, both the momentary pleasure during the act and pain during childbirth, are effects of Adam and Eve’s original sin. After Adam and Eve committed original sin they covered their private parts indicating a violation had occurred in this area not intended by God. This quick, momentary pleasure during the sexual act placed the excitation of the flesh at the center of attention instead of the true cause, which is the procreation of a child. Satan always promises a quick thrill while death lies underneath. This strange sensation that Adam and Eve experienced, this momentary flesh pleasure, was at the same time very shameful, something alien to them, to which they sensed a loss of control over their bodies. It is a misplaced and inordinate pleasure. Circumcision, which brings pain where a pleasure never belonged, is a sign that God reclaimed dominion over those that faithfully bore it, so that the devil may not tempt them with lust.”

I am quite sure the church does not reach this, and I have no clue where this author and St. Augustine (Assuming the good church doctor is even being correctly quoted here) got the idea that an orgasm is a result of original sin! Makes one wonder then how sinning somehow magically brings about nerve endings in the human body :wink:


#2

NFP involves whether “To Copulate” or “Not To Copulate”

Whereas any Contraceptive Item or Act interferes and/or circumvents with the God ordained end result of Copulation.


#3

May be so, and that would be good enough reasoning with me, but the page I am referring to had tons of quotes and such to justify that NFP=Contraception. Now that author may just be wasting pages of hot air, but I at least would like to see someone here see if they can dissect his more rational sounding arguments and try and blow them apart.


#4

Then I suggest you post the quote and I and others will take it from there.

But for starters I will give a definition I found for contraception which is very detail and is the least vague:

contraception,
n a process or technique for the prevention of pregnancy by means of a medication, device, or method that blocks or alters one or more of the processes of reproduction in such a way that sexual union can occur without impregnation.
Sources=Sources | 512;mosby()Mosby’s Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

bolded and reddend by me for emphasis

There are definitions that are more vague and general:

such as this one:

contraception /con·tra·cep·tion/ (-sep´shun) the prevention of conception or impregnation.Sources=Sources | 262144;dorland()
Dorland’s Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.


#5

First of all… that website seems to be a little off. They’ve written their own “catechism”…

Okay… more than a “little” off… here’s the statement on the website…johnthebaptist.us/sbw/default.htm

RJMI Position

I, Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi, am a Roman Catholic, and thus a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, who has hence vowed submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff and all the teachings of the Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. I accept all the 20 Ecumenical Councils of the Church, the last being the Vatican Council in 1870. I reject the Second Vatican Council as an apostate and heretical anti-Catholic council. I also denounce John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI as apostate antipopes. I believe all that is contained in the Holy Creeds of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. For a point-by-point profession of faith see my Abjuration from the Great Apostasy form.

Yeah… not worth my time to argue against… :rolleyes:


#6

Nowhere does the Bible support either of these ideas. I, for one, would like to know where the author got the idea that God originally created sex not to be pleasurable.

As for childbirth, the author is flat out wrong. The Bible informs us that God told Eve, “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing.” (Gen. 3:16) Something that does not exist cannot be intensified.


#7

Thanks for this reply. But can anyone here see if Pope Pius XI indeed condemned NFP, or does the author just assume that since he believes NFP to be contraception anyways?


#8

any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

Where is this declaration that Natural Family Planning is condemned?

How does NFP ( or more accurate, the decision 'To Copulate" or “Not to Copulate” ) frustrates the natural power to generate life?

The natural power to generate life is the act of copulation itself.

Obviously the writer to quoted this does not understand what is actually being said.


#9

Yes, Pius XI in Casti Connubii 56-57 (quoted in the article in the OP) is condemning contraception, not NFP. The author of this article is making a leap in logic that Pius XI is condemning NFP, but this is only because he has already made the incorrect assertion that NFP is contraception. Nowhere does any pope condemn NFP.

It is quite a lengthy article full of many, many problems. If there is something specific that sounds logical to you about his arguments, it would be helpful to address those specific points rather than trying to comment on the entire article and hope that we address the points you are concerned with.


#10

The web site appears to from a group opposed to Vatican II. Just my humble opinion. You ask for other than the current teaching, but that is exactly how you counter such attacks. The Church is the authority, not the splinter group.
My response is that the article is not in keeping with Catholic Church teaching. It takes references out of context. If you take the time to read the references in their entirety it is evident the purpose is not to relegate sexual intimacy in a chaste marriage to “only” the procreation of children. Just to give a brief example, the article refers to St Augustine, read what he actually writes:

[quote=St Augustine] “These, are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament.”[10] And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: “By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained.”[11]
[/quote]

His point is that there “should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere”, not that the sole purpose of sexual intercourse should be procreation!
The teaching of the Church is clear, and correct:

[quote=CCC]III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143
[/quote]


#11

I am not sure about the quote-- but Augustine was certainly very austere in his teachings on sexuality, far more so than official Church teachings. This is likely because this is the sin he bore the most guilt from due to his preconversion lifestyle. As a convert myself, I can attest to the fact that though one may know and believe his sins to be forgiven, it does not necessarily stop one from feeling great sorrow for having commited them. I also shun all vestiges of my sinful past, even those things others think innocuous, for fear that I will fall again.

You must keep in mind that no matter how great a theologian St. Augustine may have been, his being named a doctor of the Church and his canonization do not commit us to agreeing with his every opinion, though certainly we are well advised to read his writings with great care and respect.


#12

I’d encourage you to study the Theology of the Body (Lots of awesome speakers out there on that) to decide if NFP is contraception. They draw the parallel between marriage and the Eucharist that overwhelm any “NFP is only clever contraception” argument. The differences make all the difference in the world.


#13

They used to call NFP as practiced in the early 20th Century Rhythm. I recall that people my parents age (Born 1909) could use Rhythm, but had to get permission from their confessor to do so. Of course those were the days before lay people were thought educated enough to make good moral judgements and everything was “ask Father.”

This site the OP cites is a Roman Catholic site in name only. Arguing with persons there would be like trying to convince Jack Chick that his little booklets were in error. As Scripture has it,“Leave that town and shake the dust off your feet as you leave.”:shrug:


#14

“Natural Family Planning” is also known as “The Rhythm Method.”

Well, the first sentence ought to help you out, since NFP is actually the FARTHEST thing from the rhythm method. The rhythm method is based on the assumption that all women will have a 28-30 day cycle, and will ovulate around days 14-15. These days and the days around them are then to be avoided when trying to avoid a pregnancy.

In NFP, it is assumed that every single woman will ovulate when she ovulates, regardless of when every other woman does, or even when that particular woman did the month or months before the previous one. It is daily (many times daily) checking for our bodies’ signs of ovulation, which our body will give when we are ovulating, regardless of where we are in the cycle. It is then charting these signs, and following very specific instructions about when or when not to have intercourse, depending on if you’re trying to prevent a pregnancy or achieve one.

Since when does any sort of contraception involve a proponent that helps (more successfully than most fertility treatments in some people) couples to become pregnant?

It’s just basically a “map” of our fertility. Observing and charting can in no way make you pregnant or prevent one, so NFP could in no way be labeled as birth control.

In all actuality, neither could the rhythm method, since it’s following the same idea as NFP, and by the same principle you could use the rhythm method to become or not become pregnant. It’s problem is that it assumes every woman is the same, so it provides very false information. But, again, a method, or plan of action, is not a device that can DO anything.


#15

So contraception is using something to avoid pregnancy while still engaging in sex.

NFP is having sex when you are believed not likely to get pregnant forthe purpose of avoiding pregnancy.

So if A and B don’t want to get pregnant but want to have sex 4 times a month, and use a condom once a week its a sin.

And if C and D don’t want to get pregnant but want to have sex 4 times a month and have sex 4 times in a 10 day “safe” period, that’s okay.

Yep, that sure makes sense to me.


#16

Actually you are saying it doesn’t, which is not an unusual reaction. On the other hand it makes a lot of sense to others. It is not given that any of us be able to understand everything and that is reality. :slight_smile:

Also

[quote=bookgirl2]“Natural Family Planning” is also known as “The Rhythm Method.”
[/quote]

That is a misquote of what I said. Indeed NFP was a term not used back then, but in its moral justification Rhythm was basically the starting point from which we moved forward, learning as we went, how to make the concept of periodic abstinence workable and reliable as it is today. By the way nice synopsis of NFP. :slight_smile:


#17

Oh, I wasn’t quoting you!! I was quoting the first sentence in the NFP article section, sorry!!


#18

Again, I’ll repeat what an earlier, wiser poster said:

RJMI Position

I, Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi, am a Roman Catholic, and thus a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, who has hence vowed submission and obedience to the Roman Pontiff and all the teachings of the Solemn and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. I accept all the 20 Ecumenical Councils of the Church, the last being the Vatican Council in 1870. I reject the Second Vatican Council as an apostate and heretical anti-Catholic council. I also denounce John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI as apostate antipopes. I believe all that is contained in the Holy Creeds of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. For a point-by-point profession of faith see my Abjuration from the Great Apostasy form.

The writer is not Catholic. The writer is a member of a group which splintered away from the Church as a form of protest.

You know, there should be a word for that. How about…um…“Protestant”?

Would you worry about what a Baptist or Pentecostal wrote about NFP and contraception? Probably not. So why worry about what this protester writes? :shrug:


#19

There’s a pretty big difference between the two.

When you use a contraceptive, you’re going against the natural process of your body - you’re intentionally trying to block any potential for conception even when a woman ovulates. NFP acknowledges a woman’s cycles and works with them, rather than subverting them.

An analogy I was once given by Peter Kreeft helped me to understand this. Imagine during Mass the priest is about to do the consecration but someone runs up and buts his hands over the priest’s mouth, thus blocking the consecration. That’s what contraception is like - in the moments where God is able and willing to come into the woman and miraculously create a new soul, the contraceptive “shuts the door in God’s face” for lack of a better image. It’s blasphemous.


#20

Do you mean “safe” period as the time within the woman’s cycle when she is not ovulating, and therefore cannot physically conceive a human?

Why do you consider it not okay to engage in sexual intercourse during a woman’s infertile period? Do you consider this sinful?

I wonder if you see any difference between killing Grandma now to get your inheritance versus waiiiiting until Grandma’s dead to get your inheritance. The end result’s the same, right?

And eating food at the right time to maintain your weight is just as bad as taking a diet pill to prevent absorption of the food, right?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.