Pandora's Nfp

[marielapin]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1228733' date='Apr 3 2007, 03:10 PM']Abstaining from sexual intercourse also is a means of avoiding conception, but not having sex is not using the marital act separately from its dual end: procreation and union of the spouses.

But this manipulation is not a physical one, but a mental one. "We can have sex without worrying about getting pregnant"-- if reasons are grave enough to avoid conception, aren't they grave enough to avoid the risk of conception?[/quote]

What do you think NFP is? You admit that not having sex is not using the marital act seperately from its duel end, yet this is what NFP is.

When you are using NFP in accordance to the teaching of the Church, and obeying Gods will as the most important, this is not how you think. This mentality is OPPOSITE to the one taught in NFP. The Church would not approve something which perpetuates and encourages this mentality.

Added note: To use NFP in league with Church teaching is to be PERPETUALLY praying and trying to discern God's will, to be in constant communication with your spouse, and in constant assessment of your own situation economically, physically and emotionally. This is incompatible with the "we can have sex and not worry about having babies" mentality, which divorces procreation from sex.

Edited April 3, 2007 by marielapin

[marielapin]

[quote name='marielapin' post='1228715' date='Apr 3 2007, 02:55 PM']I don't think NFP is necessary for all marriages, but I do think it is a positive good and a gift and should not be treated in a "last resort" type mentality.[/quote]

I want to clarify this because on reading this again I realized that what I meant should be phrased differently, to avoid misunderstanding.

I do not think NFP is necessary in all marriages. I think the knowledge that NFP is founded on is good, just as our bodies are good, but that in all knowledge, it can be perverted and used for selfishness or evil. What I meant by "last resort" (this was not a good phrase) is that I do not think that NFP should be viewed as "best of evils" type of way, that it is only slightly better than using artificial contraception because of the fact that it has the word "natural" in it and that the Church "allows" it.

The Church does approve NFP in the right conditions but also approves and encourages large families. I do think that those who promote NFP should make sure to make the distinctions clear of how and when it should be used.

[Birgitta Noel]

Here's an interesting thing to consider. Most of these documents to which we're referring were written in the 1950s and 1960s, correct?

I'm not familiar with when the Billings method was established, but I know that the Creighton method has only been around since the 1980s (maybe even the late 80s).

So, my point is this. A lot of what we're citing as positive reasons for a woman to track her cycle may not only not have been in the minds of those writing the documents, they may not have been in any one's minds. Thus, with this knowledge if the Church were to "re-write" those documents today they might make some mention in them about the benefits of NFP to the woman's health.

Does that make any sense at all?

[Aloysius]

I don't agree with taking NFP out of its proper context as a last resort. I still hold in line with Casti Conubii and, I believe, Humanae Vitae, that it really ought to be a last resort.

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.

why do I say that? because the case is attempting to be made here that without NFP 1) there will be more miscarriages 2) women will have bad health effects 3) it will be hard to conceive at all... all these evils are brought upon marriage by the lack of NFP according to this line of reasoning.

I reject that charecterization. women died during childbirth due to poor medical knowledge; maybe it included procreating too soon after one child sometimes but mostly it was because doctors back then could not deal with complications the way doctors can nowadays.

as regards the whole 'too much sex makes conception less likely' thing: that totally makes sense and I understand it very well. periods of abstinence are good for that.

there is a difference between periods of abstinence, like after one baby is born or during lent or something; St. Paul himself mentions periods of abstinence; and NFP. NFP is having your cake and eating it too, and that is why it must be thought of as a last resort. Now, as I've been clear to mention the whole time: I'm not critiquing those who choose to use it because of circumstances, but I do believe circumstances must be present to use it. and those circumstances must rise to the occassion of actually providing a JUST CAUSE for having your cake and eating it too, for continuing marital intimacies whilst actively planning no children at that time. in the normal flow of marriage, there will be pregnancies, births, and then periods of long abstinence whilst the newborn is being taken care of. NFP is not necessary, just a period of abstinence. when Humanae Vitae speaks of spacing children, it does not mean this natural time period which would seem necessary for the health of the mother in every marriage, it means spacing them for years and years because of necessity.

Everywhere the Church speaks on NFP, she puts it in the context of a last resort. If circumstances make it not good for you to responsibly have children for a time, then use NFP. If you're having trouble conceiving; then hey, why not try NFP? but it never endorses "hey, let's decide to have no more than 3 children and make them each be three years apart" and it never contradicts the previous magisterial teaching which indicates that the ideal form of marriage would be one that accepts children out of God's providence rather than directly excercising their wills over it.

This quote from Casti Conubii I take as a direct endorsement of this paradigm of accepting children from providence
[quote]80. Even by the light of reason alone and particularly if the ancient records of history are investigated, if the unwavering popular conscience is interrogated and the manners and institutions of all races examined, it is sufficiently obvious that there is a certain sacredness and religious character attaching even to the purely natural union of man and woman, "not something added by chance but innate, not imposed by men but involved in the nature of things," since it has "God for its author and has been even from the beginning a foreshadowing of the Incarnation of the Word of God."[60]This sacredness of marriage which is intimately connected with religion and all that is holy, arises from the divine origin we have just mentioned, from its purpose which is the begetting and education of children for God, and the binding of man and wife to God through Christian love and mutual support; and finally it arises from the very nature of wedlock, whose institution is to be sought for in the farseeing Providence of God, whereby it is the means of transmitting life, thus making the parents the ministers, as it were, of the Divine Omnipotence. To this must be added that new element of dignity which comes from the sacrament, by which the Christian marriage is so ennobled and raised to such a level, that it appeared to the Apostle as a great sacrament, honorable in every way.[61][/quote]

And I have already shown where Paul VI endorses this selfsame paradigm of resigning your will to providence in procreation.

It is the difference between a man coming up to the priest and being given the Eucharist by the priest and a man coming up to the priest and picking up his own host to consume. The former is preferable, the latter not permitted unless a grave reason necessitated it (say the priest's hands had been cut off, or even he had terrible arthritis and could not even hold the host.) It is totally fine if it must be done, but there is a breach in the symbology of receptiveness which must not be allowed to overtake the mindset.

I really cannot tell if we are reading the same documents when you say "it shouldn't be seen as a last resort"... everything I read from the Magisterium indicates to me that that is precisely what it is: a last resort. sure, it may be commonly needed and when it is it is perfectly fine and moral to be used, but it is still a non-preferable last resort.

As for the difference in methodology of NFP used: when the documents are examined for their doctrinal and idealogical base, we can find an idealogy in them which is totally applicable even to a method which has some of the good benefits described. Why? Because the methodology is merely the tracking of cycles, NOT the planning of children. The idealogical and doctrinal base of these documents is all about using the knowledge of cycles to plan children as a last resort; but obtaining the knowledge is an entirely different matter. knowing the cycle better and understanding it better for your health is different than using that knowledge to decide when to have and not have children.

but this is a distinciton I think keeps being overlooked. Of course, I started this thread with a breach in this distinction in mind; thinking that the knowledge would inevitably affect the planning of families no matter what. But I think I can re-establish the distinction: there is knowing the cycle, and then there is using the knowledge of the Cycle to plan when to have and not have children. The latter is what is called NFP, Natural Family Planning; the former is not. So when I refer to NFP as a last resort, that doesn't mean getting to know the cycle is a last resort. You can proceed through the marriage completely knowledgeable about the cycle but only decide to use that information if circumstances arise which make it necessary.

[marielapin]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1229255' date='Apr 4 2007, 12:36 AM']As for the difference in methodology of NFP used: when the documents are examined for their doctrinal and idealogical base, we can find an idealogy in them which is totally applicable even to a method which has some of the good benefits described. Why? Because the methodology is merely the tracking of cycles, NOT the planning of children. The idealogical and doctrinal base of these documents is all about using the knowledge of cycles to plan children as a last resort; but obtaining the knowledge is an entirely different matter. knowing the cycle better and understanding it better for your health is different than using that knowledge to decide when to have and not have children.

but this is a distinciton I think keeps being overlooked. Of course, I started this thread with a breach in this distinction in mind; thinking that the knowledge would inevitably affect the planning of families no matter what. But I think I can re-establish the distinction: there is knowing the cycle, and then there is using the knowledge of the Cycle to plan when to have and not have children. The latter is what is called NFP, Natural Family Planning; the former is not. So when I refer to NFP as a last resort, that doesn't mean getting to know the cycle is a last resort. You can proceed through the marriage completely knowledgeable about the cycle but only decide to use that information if circumstances arise which make it necessary.[/quote]

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.

[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.