NFP

[Don John of Austria]

ButI don't think anyone here is actually saying that it is morally objectionable in and of itself.

[Carrie]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:14 PM']Ex. Ecological Breastfeeding, when used effectively, surpresses a woman's cycle. If her and her husband share the marital embrace, are you saying that this is fostering a contraceptive mentality?

In the end, it is God's will anyways.

Please explain.
[right][snapback]715805[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Those that are saying NFP is wrong are just expressing their own personal opinions. While accepted by the Church, there is no requirement in practicing NFP. As Hsmom said, its great to let the chips fall where they may.

With ecological breastfeeding, the married couple is not keeping track of when the wife is most/least likely to conceive. They are not only sharing the marital embrace during times of decreased fertility. This is definitely not embracing a contraceptive mentality.

With NFP, the couple (who is avoiding conception at that particular time)charts to keep track of fertility and engaging in the marital embrace when the wife is less fertile and abstaining when the wife is more fertile.

When done for valid reasons, NFP is wonderful (and accepted by the Church).

Some people use NFP for the wrong reasons, which can foster a contraceptive mentality. But when used for valid reasons, NFP can be a wonderful method that is accepted by the Church.

[quote]NFP, when practiced correctly fosters dignity, respect, and understanding betweeb the couple when it comes to sexuality? NFP is inherently Pro-life.[/quote]

True!

And just for the record, I support NFP!

[Carrie]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:27 PM']Using NFP intentionally so that one can have sex while preventing the having of a child  is a contrcepive mentality. That breastfeeding suppresses fertility is irrelevant that is not the intent of breastfeeding, it is a side affect, NFP has no such primary goal.
[right][snapback]715817[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Sojourner]

I'm going to start at the end of your comments first
[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:14 PM']In the end, it is God's will anyways.
[right][snapback]715805[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I can't tell you how many times I've heard this argument from people on birth control. "If God wants us to get pregnant, it will happen."

Well, that's true to a certain extent. People do get pregnant despite their best efforts to avoid it. But God also lets us make bad choices. God isn't in the business of forcing us not to sin. He can give us powerful motivators to avoid sinning, and he'll always provide us a way out in the face of temptation, but he'll allow us to sin, no doubt about it, and he'll allow us to experience the consequences of that sin. So just because God hasn't overridden some choice you've made and caused an outcome opposite of your intention doesn't mean you're on the right path.

Now, on to your overarching questions
[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:14 PM']I'm not sure I am clear on the debate here.

How exactly is NFP wrong when:

first of all, several methods are/can be employed
[right][snapback]715805[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of NFP. There's several methods of contraception, too, but that doesn't make it an acceptable alternative for a faithful Catholic.

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:14 PM']How exactly is NFP wrong when:

...
Secdondly, NFP, when practiced correctly fosters dignity, respect, and understanding betweeb the couple when it comes to sexuality? NFP is inherently Pro-life.
[right][snapback]715805[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The area I personally question with NFP is its use to avoid pregnancy. I think there are indeed a number of benefits to NFP. As a woman, I think it's important for me to understand my body and how it works, and if I were married I'd want my husband to understand that too as a part of his overall understanding of me.

But, as in many other areas, knowledge brings responsibility. All of a sudden, when you know all this stuff about how your body works and when you're more likely to conceive, you have choices to make in regard to how you're going to use this knowledge. Do you use it to avoid conception? If so, then you have to understand WHY you're using it for that purpose, and once you've pinpointed the reason you're using it to avoid conception, you need to discern whether or not that reason is in line with Church teaching in this area.

As we said earlier, it's all about intention.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:28 PM']ButI don't think anyone here is actually saying that it is morally objectionable in and of itself.
[right][snapback]715819[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'd say it's morally neutral. I don't think it's inherently pro-life or inherently contraceptive.

[Oik]

I See!

I agree here. I certainly think that NFP could be used with the attempt to avoid pregnancy (which is not in and of itself wrong, if done for morally acceptable reasons).

My uneasiness of the negative speculation about the topic stems from my wariness of the mentality the NFP is morally objectional and that even it's faithful practice leans toward a contraceptive mentality.

It has been made clear, though, that this is not the case in this thread.

As a matter of personal opinion, I honestly think it is highly unlikely that those with noble intentions, faithfulness and obidence to the Church and continued education on these matter will ever fall into the incorrect practice or incorrect useage of NFP.

[Carrie]

I hope Cam doesn't mind, but this is something he posted awhile back in the Q&A section about NFP.

Worth a second read.

[quote]Natural Family Planning is not, I repeat not contraception.

It is responsible conception. What is the purpose of NFP? Achievement of pregnancy by understanding the fertility cycle better and learning when the probability of concieving is highest. Then engaging in the sexual act at that time.

Remember, having sex is not a right, it is a privelege. Even those who are married are called to chasitity. Part of this is continence. There are times within the marriage, in which the sexual act is not appropriate.

NFP, optimizes the sexual action. It does not prevent the sexual union but sacntifies it.

Remember the threefold meaning of the sexual action.

1. Sacramental
2. Unitive
3. Procreative

Does NFP contradict any of these things? No. Does contraception contradict any of these things? Yes.

Can NFP be used inappropriately? Yep. It can be used as contraception, in order to avoid pregnancy. This mindset is not in keeping with Catholic teaching. The Catholic mindset of NFP is as stated above. It is not to avoid pregnancy, but rather to promote, through proper chastity, the conception and birth of a child.[/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:40 PM']As a matter of personal opinion, I honestly think it is highly unlikely that those with noble intentions, faithfulness and obidence to the Church and continued education on these matter will ever fall into the incorrect practice or incorrect useage of NFP.
[right][snapback]715831[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


In my experiance it is quite the opposite, more than that I have found that when NFP leads to contraceptive mentality that it tends to be the beachhead for people to start in general questioning the teaching of the Church on all sorts of matters. I am not saying that this is always so just that it is common enough to warrent concern.

I don't think I would go so far as to say NFP is morally nuetral, I would say it is morally permissable, but is not as meritrious as trusting in Divine Providence

[Oik]

Sojourner

[quote]I can't tell you how many times I've heard this argument from people on birth control. "If God wants us to get pregnant, it will happen.[/quote]

NFP is not artifical birth control, it employs natural means of menstural observation and various natural means (if necessary) of birth regulation and even a natural means (if you are familiar with NaPro technology) of fertility disease treatment.

[quote]That has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of NFP. There's several methods of contraception, too, but that doesn't make it an acceptable alternative for a faithful Catholic. [/quote]

NFP is not contraception, though contraceptive methods are always (and rightfully so) umbrella'd (bad grammar, I know) under one term.

The Methods of NFP certain do apply if one wants to discuss the inherant moral values of it. I beleive this is clearly evident when one compares Ecological breastfeeding alone with the Sympto-thermal method alone.

[quote]But, as in many other areas, knowledge brings responsibility. All of a sudden, when you know all this stuff about how your body works and when you're more likely to conceive, you have choices to make in regard to how you're going to use this knowledge. Do you use it to avoid conception? If so, then you have to understand WHY you're using it for that purpose, and once you've pinpointed the reason you're using it to avoid conception, you need to discern whether or not that reason is in line with Church teaching in this area.[/quote]

Totally agreed! It is of paramount importance for the one flesh of the marital couple to understand the acts of themselves, from themselves (here of course the plural is used in the singular sense). This knowledge though, fosters in the faithful heart responsibility. If they themsleves misuse the knowledge, that really says nothing of the knowledge itself, it only speaks of the one person act of the couple.


[quote]I'd say it's morally neutral. I don't think it's inherently pro-life or inherently contraceptive.[/quote]

For reasons already stated, I disagree with you.

[Carrie]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Sep 8 2005, 03:35 PM']I'd say it's morally neutral. I don't think it's inherently pro-life or inherently contraceptive.
[right][snapback]715826[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't know that I'd say morally neutral.

I would think issues such as tattoos (let's not expand on the issues of tattoos here) are morally neutral since the Church has no stance.

But the Church clearly supports NFP.

[Oik]

[quote]I don't think I would go so far as to say NFP is morally nuetral, I would say it is morally permissable, but is not as meritrious as trusting in Divine Providence[/quote]

There is a certain naiveity(sp) that can go into people's "trust in God." We aren't monastics, we are laity. Which is the higher calling? Celibacy, not marriage.

In this sense, I have to disagree that NFP isn't trusting in God's Divine Providence. The point of NFp is not to "empower" the couple to "gain control of thier fertility." The point is to foster love and understanding of the beatiful creature that has now, in marriage, become one flesh. As the post said, it is to sanctify sex. If something is sacntified to God, it is certainly not morally neutral nor is it less than meritous in regards to trusting in God's Divine Providence.

Is it celibacy? Of course not. Is it Chastity, absolutely!

[Jake Huether]

I'm a tad late in chiming in, but oh well...

On the one hand I see how someone might have been confused about "manipulating" ovulation of a woman, so to speak... since the topic includes the discussion of contraception - which does indeed, in some cases, physically alter a womans ovulation. But in the case of NFP, which Don John was clearly referring to, manipulation takes on a slightly different meaning. In other words, one needs to understand the use of the word manipulation in context to what it is referring to.

One can manipulate a light, so the analogy went, to achieve better lighting...

In this case manipulation changes the end result, but requires, in the process, the chaning of the means.

One may also manipulate what I say, to say something that I didn't really mean to say.

The words stay the same, similar to ovulation, which is unchanged in NFP, yet it is the words themselves that ARE infact manipulated.

In this case manipulation changes the end result while retaining the means.

So it is true that some individuals using NFP may manipulate ovulation to their end.

Hope that clarifies things.

I see both points of view.

Peace and Love in Christ.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:59 PM']The point is to foster love and understanding of the beatiful creature that has now, in marriage, become one flesh. As the post said, it is to sanctify sex. [right][snapback]715848[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please explain how it is in anyway fostering love for anything. Understanding of a thing does not foster love, wonder fosters love, the more one knows about a thing, the less mysterious that thing becomes, and with the death of mystery comes a callousness which does anything but foster love. No NFP is to regulate the bearing of children, there is nothing inhirently good about that, nothing loving, nothing at all.

[Oik]

In that sense Jake, I then disagree.

If manipulation is to change the end result and God controls the end result in NFP, then NFP has notthing to do with changing the end result. Also, treating fertility diseases would then also count as manipulating. This is of course a stance that coulkd be tweaked if one made the distinction of positive, licit manipulation (as in life saving operations) and negative manipulations (as in plastic surgeory).

Even still, I don't see that NFP manipulates anything here. The woman consents, the man consents, the process charts biological markers. The couple has the option to share the marital embrace whenever they want, during any part of the charting really. It is left up to the couple here.

What is being manipulated? Even of the end result were to avoid preganacy (and even for inccorect reasons) the process is not inherently contraceptive on an objective level. It might be subjectively used as a contraceptive mentality, but this then falls on the couple, not on the method itself.

[Carrie]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:09 PM']Understanding of a thing does not foster love, wonder fosters love, the more one knows about a thing, the less mysterious that thing becomes, and with the death of mystery comes a callousness which does anything but foster love.
[right][snapback]715855[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Is that really true?

I don't agree. Use your example and apply it to a married couple.

Over time, a married couple comes to understand each other more and more. They learn a great deal about each other. While they may not be wonderous or mysterious to each other anymore after some time, I would argue that their love grows and matures because of this understanding.

Just my .02 cents

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Sep 8 2005, 02:14 PM']Is that really true?

I don't agree.  Use your example and apply it to a married couple. 

Over time, a married couple comes to understand each other more and more.  They learn a great deal about each other.  While they may not be wonderous or mysterious to each other anymore after some time, I would argue that their love grows and matures because of this understanding.

Just my .02 cents
[right][snapback]715860[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


A married couple doesn' really understand each other not really, a person is not a thing that can be understood, that is what makes persons wonderful. If understandng fostered love then God would make himself understandable. Once something is Truely understoood then it is by definition no longer mysterious, no longer wonderful. The Rings of Saturn used to inspire wonder in me, now I know what they are, no longer can I look though a telescope and see them and think of them with that pure unadulterated wonder. If you look at your spouse and feel you truely understand that person, either you are tremendouosly arrogant or you married a vegtable.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Sep 8 2005, 02:03 PM']I'm a tad late in chiming in, but oh well...

On the one hand I see how someone might have been confused about "manipulating" ovulation of a woman, so to speak... since the topic includes the discussion of contraception - which does indeed, in some cases, physically alter a womans ovulation.  But in the case of NFP, which Don John was clearly referring to, manipulation takes on a slightly different meaning.  In other words, one needs to understand the use of the word manipulation in context to what it is referring to.

One can manipulate a light, so the analogy went, to achieve better lighting...

In this case manipulation changes the end result, but requires, in the process, the chaning of the means.

One may also manipulate what I say, to say something that I didn't really mean to say.

The words stay the same, similar to ovulation, which is unchanged in NFP, yet it is the words themselves that ARE infact manipulated.

In this case manipulation changes the end result while retaining the means.

So it is true that some individuals using NFP may manipulate ovulation to their end.

Hope that clarifies things.

I see both points of view.

Peace and Love in Christ.
[right][snapback]715851[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


/sign

[Oik]

[quote]Please explain how it is in anyway fostering love for anything. Understanding of a thing does not foster love, wonder fosters love, the more one knows about a thing, the less mysterious that thing becomes, and with the death of mystery comes a callousness which does anything but foster love. No NFP is to regulate the bearing of children, there is nothing inhirently good about that, nothing loving, nothing at all.[/quote]

While it is true that one can become cold to a situation on a subective level (as a matter of opinon), one can never deny or re-write the objective value of a thing by forcing a subjective value that is related to it, on it.

NFP forsters love by fostering respect and dignity of the couple. The woman learns about the beauty and complexity of her body. In this way, the mystery of who she is as a woman is deepened, not lessened. For example, I am a Theology student. The more I learn about my Lord, the more I fall passionately in Love with Him. Now, Theology, the stidy of God, surely doesn't take a way from the Mystery of Christ, His Sacrifice, or even the Mystery of my Faith. Neither does a systematic appraoch to Theology. Can it lead to heresy? For some it has.

Yes, understanding a thing does foster love. It fosters understanding, empathy, respect, dignity. To want to know God is to want to know Love. When we seek God in our spouse, we seek God. When we respect the dignity that God has given to a human being, we repsect it's Creator, God.

I disagree that knowing about a woman or a woman knowing about a man lessens the mystery. In fact, is deepens the Mystery. I hope that I can spend all Eternity learning about God. I'll sure I'll spend all Eternity Worship Him, which I long for.

Learniong about your spouse is loving. It is romantic. I want to go on dates with my wife when I get married. I want to know what she thinks about the world. I want to her hear voice explaining the intricacies of her delicate creation.

Will she be less mysterious to me? No. She will evermore be my beloved.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 01:52 PM']NFP is not artifical birth control, it employs natural means of menstural observation and various natural means (if necessary) of birth regulation and even a natural means (if you are familiar with NaPro technology) of fertility disease treatment.
NFP is not contraception, though contraceptive methods are always (and rightfully so) umbrella'd (bad grammar, I know) under one term.
[right][snapback]715843[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oik, I’m very familiar with NFP and various NFP methods, and I know it’s not artificial birth control. My point in making this comment was that your statement, “In the end, it is God's will anyways,” is a poor argument in favor of NFP – or for any activity, really – because of the reasons I went on to lay out.

With regard to the moral neutrality question ... what I perhaps should have said is that I think the moral value of NFP lies in its proper practice, with an intent in line with church teaching. Without proper intent, I think NFP can be the moral equivalent of using contraceptives. I termed it “morally neutral” because I see its goodness or badness lying not so much in the practice itself as in the intent of the individual couple. I don’t think NFP itself can be inherently good, because given a poor intent it can be evil. But, unlike contraception it’s not inherently bad. So I said morally neutral. If my terminology is wrong, I apologize.

[Oik]

Don, I see you point of the mysteriousness of a Creature, believe me I do. The point I am making is that we have to becareful of the subjective boiling over into the objective.

The intent is not to equate knowing with all-knowing.