Natural Family Planning vs. other contracetption

[Guest thetallndbassman]

I understand the church's argument that contraception is a violation of the sacrament of marriage since by using it the married couple is no longer remaining open to the possibility of having children and is thus violating their vows. What I'm wondering is how the church has managed to rationalize that NFP is morally acceptable since it would seem that it is difficult if not impossible to practice while remaining open to the possibility of children. It is my understanding that NFP can be as affective as other contraceptive methods, so how would you take that into the picture.

[Benedict]

To put it simply:

Artificial birth control is the active reduction of the chance of conceiving. It actively places real barriers (physical or chemical) between husband and wife to prevent conception.

Natural family planning is the passive reduction of the chance of conceiving. It passively utilizes the naturally infertile periods in a woman's cycle.

To put it very simply:

NFP respects human fertility and works with the natural infertility of woman created by God. ABC seeks to countermand human fertility and creates an unnatural infertility.

[Lil Red]

well put.

[popestpiusx]

I think there must be a better justification, because even though NFP uses no active method as far as a physical barrier, it seems that the intention is (or can be) the exact same; namely, to avoid having children. That is, with NFP a person makes the explicit choice to engage in the marital act only when the woman cannot conceive. It is even promoted as being more effective than artificial contraception. This mentality seems to me to provide a very slippery slope to the practice. I'm not saying that there is a distinction, or that NFP is always morally illicit. I'm just trying to find a more fundamental explanation because it seems to me that as science progresses the day is coming when NFP will be 100% accurate. We then cannot claim that it is a matter "reducing the chance of conception"; rather, it completely eliminates that chance. Would such an act still be open to life?

[cmotherofpirl]

It is still not putting any chemical or physical barriers to life. God can cause the body can still release a random egg and you can get pregnant. You are leaving the choice up to Him.

[Lil Red]

i just read something out of Chris West's book [u]Good News about Sex & Marriage[/u] concerning this very question:

[quote]What's the big difference between sterilizing the act of intercourse yourself and just waiting until it's naturally infertile?

What the big difference between an abortion and a miscarriage?  What's the big difference between suicide and natural death?  Like these examples, the difference between sterilizing an act of intercourse [i]yourself[/i] and accepting the [i]God-given[/i] infertile time is one of cosmic dimensions.

As John Paul II once said:  "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." ([i]L'Osservatore Romano[/i], October 10, 1983, 7)

This is the question at stake here:  Are you free to take into your own hands the powers of life, or does that power belong to God and God alone?  Think long and hard before you answer this question.  How you do will determine your place in the cosmos.[/quote]

[Guest thetallndbassman]

The major difference that's being addressed is that artificial contraception puts a physical barrier in place. However, conception can and still does occur even in this case. The fact remains that when you're using NFP, your are placing scientific knowledge in the way (chemical and physical barriers are just another form of scientific knowledge). According to Chris West's analogy, it would almost be the same as saying that committing suicide by euthanasia is bad, natural death is good, but if you could somehow walk outside to a place where you had reason to believe lightning would strike, that would be okay? It doesn't seem to fit.

[Lil Red]

okay, i found more on this in the same book. bear with me, it's a longer response.

[quote][b]I still don't see the big difference between NFP and contraception[/b].

Do you [i]want[/i] to see the difference?  Many people don't, because somewhere they intuit that it would demand not just a change of behavior in the bedroom but the transformation of their entire worldview.  If that's what you're sensing, you're right.

As we hinted in the previous question, the way we understand the order of the universe shifts in one of two irreconcilable directions on this point.  Either God is God, and we trust his ordering of the unniverse, or we're trying to be God and control things ourselves.  My advice:  Let God be God.

There's nothing to fear.  Trusting him is only threatening if he's a tyrant.  He's not.  He's perfect love.  Let go.  Let him in.  Trust him.

If you're open to seeing the difference, I think the following analogy will help.  Suppose there were a religious person, a nonreligious person, and an antireligious person walking past a church.  What might each do?

Let's say the religious person goes inside and prays, the nonreligious person walks by and does nothing, and the antireligious person goes inside the church and desecrates it.  (I'm framing an analogy, of course, but these are reasonable behaviors to expect.)  Which of these three person did something that is always, under every circumstance, wrong?  The last, of course.

Husbands and wives are called to be [i]procreative[/i].  If they have a good reason to avoid pregnancy, they are free to be [i]non-procreative[/i].  But it's a contradiction of the deepest essence of the sacrament of marriage to be [i]anti-procreative[/i].

The analogy is even more profound than you may think.  According to Ephesians chapter 5, the wife is a sacramental sign of the Church.  As exemplified in the Virgin Mary, woman's womb has truly become the temple of God.  If the husband enters this "church," he must pray for God's will to be done.  He may have a good reason not to enter the "church."  But it would be a grievous sacrilege to enter the church and desecrate it by sterilizing her womb.

Here's another analogy. (Due Dr. Donald DeMarco)  Most engaged couples come to realize in planning their weddings that there are people they know whom, with good reason, they can't invite to the wedding.  The proper thing to do is simply not to send them an invitation.  Can you imagine sending them a "[i]dis[/i]-invitation"?  "We are getting married on June 21, but we do [i]not[/i] want you to be there.  Please do not come."  That would be an obvious breach of the relationship.

This is what married couples are doing to God when they contracept.  By engaging in intercourse, they are sending God an invitation to join them in bringing about his most creative act, but when God opens the invitation, it says in bold letters: "[b]Do Not Come.  We Don't Want You Here.[/b]"  On the other hand, couples who abstain from intercourse to avoid pregnancy are simply not sending an invitation to God.  If the couple has a good reason to avoid a pregnancy, God can understand that.  There's no breach of relationship.[/quote]

for more, I would suggest picking up a copy of Chris West's book [u]Good News About Sex and Marriage[/u]. It is very helpful.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Infertile periods are a deliberate part of God's intelligent design. Thus, to use them in the manner NFP does is not circumventing nature. Artificial contraception circumvents our natural design.

[cathqat]

Any fool can tell the difference between "having sex" and "abstaining from sex." And if that wasn't a HUGE difference between NFP and contraception, no one would bother to contracept or argue in favor of contraception.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jan 27 2005, 01:50 PM'] It is still not putting any chemical or physical barriers to life. God can cause the body can still release a random egg and you can get pregnant. You are leaving the choice up to Him. [/quote]
God could do the same for someone on the pill or whatever form of artificial contraception one may be using. He could make an old woman, long past childrearing age, to concieve. What God can do extraordinarily has no relevance to this question. Ultimately the choice is always up to Him.

I also don't think it works to boil the question down to artificiality. There are plenty of cases in the medical field where it is morally permissable to artificially alter some natural process in order to bring about some greater good.

[cathqat]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Jan 27 2005, 08:15 PM'] I also don't think it works to boil the question down to artificiality. There are plenty of cases in the medical field where it is morally permissable to artificially alter some natural process in order to bring about some greater good. [/quote]
I agree. A prosthetic arm, for example, is artificial but beneficial, serving the integrity of bodily function. More complex examples are also possible.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 27 2005, 09:11 PM'] Any fool can tell the difference between "having sex" and "abstaining from sex." And if that wasn't a HUGE difference between NFP and contraception, no one would bother to contracept or argue in favor of contraception.  [/quote]
The point is thus: Intention specifies the act. When one engages in the marital act while using contraceptives, the intention is obvious: to enjoy the benefits of the marital act without the "side effect" of children. When discussing NFP in this context, I think you know very well that we are not discussing the mere abstention from the marital act, for that is not what comprises NFP. We are here referring to the intention, and how it affects the act. Therefore, I would posit the situation in comparison to the above description of an act of contraception. The intention of NFP (in this context) is to abstain from the marital act during fertile periods and to engage in it during infertile periods so that [u] one may enjoy the benefits of the marital act without the side effect of children [/u]. The intention is the same, or so it seems to me. I do not see how it can be any different. I do not see how one can say "We'll refrain from the marital act during fertile periods so as to avoid having children" and "We are 100% open to children" at the same time, and actually intend both to be true. It seems to be a contradiction.

Let me clarify something here before people fly off the handle and start making ridiculous assumptions and irrational comments. I'm not saying that the use of NFP is a sin. I am simply saying that I don't see how the intention is any different from that of contraception, because in both cases you are positively willing to engage in the act. If that makes me a fool, cathqat, then so be it. I have long been willing to admit as much. Now that we have settled the question of my intellectual dearth, would you be so kind as to address the issue. There has to be an explanation. I just can't seem to find it. Perhaps those more wise can do so.

Edited January 28, 2005 by popestpiusx

[phatcatholic]

PSPX................if you feel that the intention is the same, why is one a sin and the other is not? when is it actually ok to use NFP?

[popestpiusx]

Problems I have with the Christopher West quote is:

1)I don't contracept, nor due I use NFP. I just, ...well, never mind. But I still don't see the difference at the level of intention. He seems to think that the people who can't see the difference don't want to. Why? [/QUOTE]because somewhere they intuit that it would demand not just a change of behavior in the bedroom but the transformation of their entire worldview.[quote]  Quite frankly, I couldn't care less.  I don't use anything, so I nothing to gain personally by rejecting it or accepting it. 

2)His analogies smell of elderberries, or are at least inadequate. (To much material here to go into.)

3)In his advise to those contracepting, he shoots his own theory in the foot with quotes like the following:

[/quote]Either God is God, and we trust his ordering of the unniverse, or we're trying to be God and control things ourselves. My advice: Let God be God.

There's nothing to fear. Trusting him is only threatening if he's a tyrant. He's not. He's perfect love. Let go. Let him in. Trust him.[QUOTE]

In other words, why try to play God by using any method of birth regulation. Just let God be God. He knows what is best for us.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 27 2005, 09:58 PM'] PSPX................if you feel that the intention is the same, why is one a sin and the other is not? when is it actually ok to use NFP? [/quote]
I don't "feel" anything one way or another about the intention. I simply do not understand what, if any, distinction exists.

I didn't say that it was not a sin, nor did I say that it was. I am quite certain that it can be. When is it permissable? If it is permissable, and it seems that various pontiffs have stated that it is, then, in keeping with those same pontiffs, it is permissable only for grave reasons. What constitutes a "grave reason"? That would require me some time to develop. I'll put it on a word document and then post it if it is worth posting.

[Benedict]

The difference is the same as I pointed out in my first post: NFP respects what God has created as part of woman's nature.

I am a roleplayer and one of the debates I get into most often is how a paladin (holy knight with a binding code of conduct) should act. Too many people focus on the ends and not the means. The paladin's code boils down to "do the right thing the right way."

By way of example we shall consider two couples, one which practices NFP and the other which uses ABC.

Case 1: The desired end is to not conceive a child. The motivation is considered to fall under "grave circumstances" (laid off from their jobs, no money, getting towards being evicted from their home, etc).

The NFP couple feels that it would be irresponsible of them to bring a child into the world at the present. They abstain from their normal frequency of intercourse but do engage in the marital act during the wife's infertile periods for the reason of the intimacy of marriage. The possibility of conception remains should God deem it so.

The ABC couple feels that it would be irresponsible of them to bring a child into the world at the present. They utilize condoms and birth control pills to retain their normal frequency of intercourse for the reason of the intimacy of marriage. As always, God can still will her conception.

I have kept the motivations of each couple the same. However, it is clear that one couple has done the right thing (based on their conscience) in the right way and the other has done the right thing the wrong way.

Case 2: The desired end is not to conceive a child. The motivation is burden-free marital intimacy (not equating to, but including, sexual pleasure).

The NFP couple figures that using NFP is a legitimate means to achieve their end. They abstain from their normal frequency of intercourse but do engage in the marital act during the wife's infertal periods for the reason of marital intimacy. The possibility of conception remains.

The ABC couple figures that using ABC will allow them to more frequently achieve their end. They utilize condoms and birth control pills to retain their normal frequency of intercourse for the reason of marital intimacy. As always, God can still will her conception.

I have kept the motivations of each couple the same. It is clear that the right means offer no redemption when used for the wrong ends. Of course, using the wrong means to a wrong end is no good either.



Basically, NFP is the right means when used for the proper reasons. When used for the wrong reasons, it is not the right means nor can it make wrong ends into right ends.

[Benedict]

[quote]I also don't think it works to boil the question down to artificiality.  There are plenty of cases in the medical field where it is morally permissable to artificially alter some natural process in order to bring about some greater good.[/quote]
Cathqat pointed out one of the considerations for this: those cases are restoring (or creating) normal body function or integrity where it is lacking (through disease, accident, mutation, etc). It is permissible to restore a lost arm. Would it be permissible to add an arm or two to an individual with a pair of normal, functioning arms?

[phatcatholic]

these articles may help:

[b]Natural Family Planning[/b]
--[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ495.HTM"]Dialogue on the Ethical Distinction Between Artificial Contraception and Natural Family Planning[/url]
--[url="http://www.ccli.org/"]Natural Family Planning/Couple to Couple League[/url]
--[url="http://www.crisismagazine.com/december2001/cover.htm"]Solving the Puzzle of Natural Family Planning[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Homiletic/12-96/8/8.html"]Contraception and Natural Family Planning: Explaining the Difference[/url]
--[url="http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19980701/ARTICLES/TEACH_NFP.HTM"]An Explanation for NFP[/url]
--[url="http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/"]Billings Ovulation Method: Natural Family Planning[/url]
--[url="http://www.trincomm.org/research/retrieve.cfm?RecNum=341"]Contraception and Rhythm of the Cycle[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/ewtn/experts/forum11.htm"]Ask the Experts: Natural Family Planning[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0008.html"]The How and Why of Natural Family Planning[/url]
--[url="http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19971201/HEALTH/NFP.HTM"]Natural Family Planning[/url]
--[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0003.html"]Natural Family Planning and Self-Mastery[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/CCLQFP.TXT"]Q&A's about Natural Family Planning[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/NFPMONIT.TXT"]New NFP Monitor Promises Increased Accuracy and Reliability for Parents[/url]
--[url="http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19990101/STORIES/nfp_hrkach.htm"]Our Life with NFP[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRACTNFP.HTM"]The Practice of Natural Family Planning[/url]
--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/THYROID.TXT"]What Your Basal Temps Reveal About Your Thyroid Function[/url]
--[url="http://catholicexchange.com/clibrary/document.asp?document_id=647&category_id=111&main_cat_id=102"]Natural Family Planning: A Secret No More[/url]
--[url="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html"]Is Natural Family Planning a Heresy?[/url]
--[url="http://www.staycatholic.com/the_nfp_challenge.htm"]Are You Man Enough to Take The NFP Challenge?[/url]

[Theoketos]

PPSX, Do you think that if a Man and a Women should avoid pregnancy they should forever not have sex again?