Pandora's Nfp

[marielapin]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1229255' date='Apr 4 2007, 12:36 AM']You betray yourselves by saying, on the one hand, that NFP is a positive good and all of those other things which have been attached to it on this thread; and on the other hand, saying it may not be for all marriages.[/quote]

Why on earth can it not be a positive good and still not be for all marriages? Everyone's situation in marriage is different. Some may not need NFP, and that is good. Some may need NFP or even want to learn about it, and for those, it is a positive good. God is making a positive good out of a "less-than-ideal" situation. It is like saying that medicine is a positive good, and it is. Obviously the "ideal" would be that we weren't sick, but how often does it happen that we need to go through life without ever needing it?

But I do not agree with your analogy that the difference between non-NFP and NFP users is the difference between receiving Christ and taking Him from the priest. Those who use NFP are still passive in their acceptance of God's will, they are not asserting their will above His. This is the mindset that I keep getting hung up on.

For example, say you have a working system, with its normal ups and downs, like the use of energy. Energy use is highest in the middle of the day, when people are blasting their air conditioners, and is lowest at night. Our Power Company has a program that allows you to purchase your power during the low times, instead of the peak times, because at the low times the energy is cheaper, therefore you save money. This is similar to NFP, it acknowledges the system and merely taps into it. It does not interfere with the system, trying to change it or force it to do one thing.

Contraception actually interferes with the fertility system, the same way a communicant would interfere by taking the host. It is an absolute imposition of the will upon God's plan. A better analogy would be that a NFP-user that had the opportunity to go to Mass and receive every day, chooses sometimes not to go to Mass (except on days of obligation) or sometimes when going, not to receive the host.

Edited April 4, 2007 by marielapin

[Archaeology cat]

First, let me start by saying that I realize earlier I was getting caught up in charting vs. planning. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused there. I am a strong advocate for charting, as it does reveal some health info, and I'm also one for planning, as long as there is a valid reason.

[quote name='marielapin' post='1229659' date='Apr 4 2007, 07:19 PM']But I do not agree with your analogy that the difference between non-NFP and NFP users is the difference between receiving Christ and taking Him from the priest. Those who use NFP are still passive in their acceptance of God's will, they are not asserting their will above His. This is the mindset that I keep getting hung up on.[/quote]
I'd have to echo marielapin here. When we use NFP, we aren't saying that we can do it without God, or asserting our will above His. It's more of a recognition of this gift God has given, in our fertility. If you're in a situation where you need to plan, it's done with prayer, and so you don't even go there without giving it to God first in prayer. Then yes, you plan around the cycle God has given you, which is different for every woman. But in planning you still acknowledge God's providence and hand in the matter. I can plan all I want, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I will/won't conceive at a certain time just because my husband & I were planning. I'm sure most women would tell you that they didn't conceive the first time they started planning to have children.

[quote name='marielapin' post='1229659' date='Apr 4 2007, 07:19 PM']Contraception actually interferes with the fertility system, the same way a communicant would interfere by taking the host. It is an absolute imposition of the will upon God's plan. A better analogy would be that a NFP-user that had the opportunity to go to Mass and receive every day, chooses sometimes not to go to Mass (except on days of obligation) or sometimes when going, not to receive the host.[/quote]

Contraception interferes with your entire being, really. I used to be on the pill for medical reasons, but finally found a doctor who was willing to try something different. At first, I was a basketcase, because my body didn't know what to do when I had to produce and respond to my own hormones. Not to mention that your fertility can take a long time to return (they don't tell you before hand that it can take up to 2 years). So I definitely wouldn't equate NFP with contraception, since NFP in no way alters your fertility or body chemistry.

I really like this analogy, though.

[Aloysius]

my analogy went too far because taking the Eucharist from a priest is barely ever acceptable. My analogy would make more sense if there was a common enough situation which would make picking up the Eucharist yourself necessary but would include a way to preserve the symbolism in some way (for example, the less than ideal situation is that there are not enough priests to distribute communion. the solution which would be analogous to NFP would be that deacons and acolytes are instituted, thus preserving the symbolism by which an extension of the clergy distributes the communion. even to a lesser extent we preserve the symbolism by having EMHCs be deputized/commissioned by the priest to be temporary extensions of himself) because that's what NFP does: it breaches the ordinary paradigm of receptiveness out of necessity but maintains receptiveness in another, non-ordinary way. I did not intend to imply anything more than that.


[quote]Why on earth can it not be a positive good and still not be for all marriages? Everyone's situation in marriage is different. Some may not need NFP, and that is good. Some may need NFP or even want to learn about it, and for those, it is a positive good. God is making a positive good out of a "less-than-ideal" situation. It is like saying that medicine is a positive good, and it is. Obviously the "ideal" would be that we weren't sick, but how often does it happen that we need to go through life without ever needing it?[/quote]

when I say it is not a [i]positive[/i] good, I am trying to say that, all things being equal and ideal (ie it is not necessary), it would not be something that ought to be added to a situation. I don't know if I'm using the term positive correctly, or maybe I'm just not using in with its popular connotations (of course I could even be erring on what I see as its non-popular philosophical connotation as well, I'm not sure). It is a good, when it is necessary.

The way I'm defining positive good would be like... an apple is a positive good, because it'd be good to add an apple to an already ideal situation. But I would not define (in my def of positive good, which I'm not sure of the philosophical accuracy of) crutches as a positive good. It would not be good to add crutches to an already ideal situation... then he'd just have these two big things to carry for no reason. They'd be more like an equalizing good... bringing all things back to normal. That would also apply, then, to medicine... adding medicine to an already ideal situation is not good (in fact, it is quite bad, making this a perfect analogy)

Let me analogize the way I'm using these terms to a number scale, with 0 being the reference point for "good". 0 + 1 makes something positive, hence I would call it a positive good (ie 0 + an apple). But 0 - 1 bring us down to negatives (ie 0 - circumstances), something which is good may be added to bring it back to 0. It's not a postivizing good, it's a restorative good. I guess, in this analogy, choosing the lesser of two evils would be a "negative good" it is good to choose the better of two evils, but it still leaves you in the negative category.

And so, barring any further misunderstanding, I think we may be agreeing, marielapin. I will have to do some research to figure out where I got this use of "positive good" and whether it is at all philosophically accurate, but I hope you at least have now gotten the point of what I meant by saying NFP isn't a positive good, because there's a very important point to be made there. Some people think of NFP as a positive good in the sense I defined it above, and I disagree with that.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='marielapin' post='1229635' date='Apr 4 2007, 02:03 PM']Then we actually agree. I'm glad you mentioned this distinction because I think that was what was at issue here. In my last post you will see that I wanted to reword my "last resort" phrase. I consider myself to use NFP to track fertility, but you are right, using it to plan is different. Using NFP to plan should be used as a last resort. I just don't like it being labeled as something bad. Just because something is not ideal, does not mean it is bad. And "Pandora's Box" has the connotation of being something bad, to me.[/quote]
I think, objectively, there was nothing inherently wrong with Pandora opening a box. But in this analogy of a Pandora's box, not only that but that which is inside the box is not inherently wrong; just that it's proper and most ideal place is inside of the box... and therefore, if one is unable to put it back in the box (the planning, not the tracking) then one has released a wild non-ideal situation which would not be good. But again, I've come to the conclusion that I was approaching that from too linear and logical a paradigm... "knowledge of cycle + human mind = oh no we'll never be able to not plan it ever again!"

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1231543' date='Apr 5 2007, 10:50 PM']when I say it is not a [i]positive[/i] good, I am trying to say that, all things being equal and ideal (ie it is not necessary), it would not be something that ought to be added to a situation. I don't know if I'm using the term positive correctly, or maybe I'm just not using in with its popular connotations (of course I could even be erring on what I see as its non-popular philosophical connotation as well, I'm not sure). It is a good, when it is necessary.

The way I'm defining positive good would be like... an apple is a positive good, because it'd be good to add an apple to an already ideal situation. But I would not define (in my def of positive good, which I'm not sure of the philosophical accuracy of) crutches as a positive good. It would not be good to add crutches to an already ideal situation... then he'd just have these two big things to carry for no reason. They'd be more like an equalizing good... bringing all things back to normal. That would also apply, then, to medicine... adding medicine to an already ideal situation is not good (in fact, it is quite bad, making this a perfect analogy)

Let me analogize the way I'm using these terms to a number scale, with 0 being the reference point for "good". 0 + 1 makes something positive, hence I would call it a positive good (ie 0 + an apple). But 0 - 1 bring us down to negatives (ie 0 - circumstances), something which is good may be added to bring it back to 0. It's not a postivizing good, it's a restorative good. I guess, in this analogy, choosing the lesser of two evils would be a "negative good" it is good to choose the better of two evils, but it still leaves you in the negative category.

And so, barring any further misunderstanding, I think we may be agreeing, marielapin. I will have to do some research to figure out where I got this use of "positive good" and whether it is at all philosophically accurate, but I hope you at least have now gotten the point of what I meant by saying NFP isn't a positive good, because there's a very important point to be made there. Some people think of NFP as a positive good in the sense I defined it above, and I disagree with that.[/quote]

Okay, I understand what you're saying with this, and I think I might agree now that I understand how you're using the terminology. I'm still not sure about the "two evils" part, entirely, but I do see where you're coming from. I'll think some more on this, though.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1218972' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:34 PM']You can always use NFP to find the best times for having children, i.e. when your wife is most fertile.

Oh, and the cycle can change...a lot. I know women who've had their periods two weeks early because finals stressed them out too much. Plus, dorms usually alter the cycle because there's usually one dominant girl who screws up everyone else's cycle.[/quote]
how do you know that ?

[kateri05]

well to get micah outa a bad spot, i'll just tell you that i AM that girl. i've had multiple roommates, groups of close friends, and coworkers all change their cycle by days and even WEEKS to adapt to me.


muahahahaha sooon, my hormones will rule the world!!! :

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1239153' date='Apr 11 2007, 08:40 PM']well to get micah outa a bad spot, i'll just tell you that i AM that girl. i've had multiple roommates, groups of close friends, and coworkers all change their cycle by days and even WEEKS to adapt to me.
muahahahaha sooon, my hormones will rule the world!!! :[/quote]

Same here. It was so much fun living with 5 other girls at school, and then living with my sister.