In the post “French Bishop Urges Vatican to Reopen Debate on Whether 1+1=2”, Funky mentions that:
“Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act.”
I was inclined by this to comment on that post, but its my hope that others might have input on my thoughts about Humanae Vitae and NFP.
The Church advocates NFP (Natural Family Planning) as a form of contraception (though they don’t call it that). Using this method, couples track the fertility of the female through various methods of empirical measurement (timing, body temperature, the consistency of saliva and other bodily fluids). When the female is in her non-fertile period, only then do they engage in sexual intercourse.
It seems to me that this is a rather unnatural (or artificial) act. I don’t see anything natural about having sex by a stopwatch. One might argue that the unnatural act of the measurements and timing happens before sex, so it is not really related. I find that, however, to be a slippery slope. Just as slippery as “when does human life begin?” is for pro -or anti-abortion arguments.
Others will offer caveats that there is still a possibility of pregnancy with NFP. On the other hand, catholic NFP advocates will also tell you that NFP is more effective than condoms or The Pill. If they make this argument, then they must condone both condoms and The Pill as okay, since they offer a higher possibility of conception.
A few might argue that The Pill is bad just because it’s a bunch of unhealthy chemicals that do mean things to the person taking it. I typically disregard this argument. If the Church is disallowing it on these grounds, then most weight loss drugs should be disallowed, but all this should occur under some other grounds than contraception.
Still others might argue the barrier argument against condoms. This argument states that a physical barrier (a condom, empty space, etc.) is the problem. By this argument, The Pill must be okay, since it posses no barrier, but simply controls ovulation.
Finally, some would argue what I call “The Every Sperm is Sacred Rule” (kudos to Monty Python). By this argument, it’s the frustration and waste of sperm that becomes the issue. However, is this not the case with NFP, where there is little or no possibility of anything but death for the little swimmers? Indeed, the little guys suffer the same fate in any infertile scenario, whether with NFP, The Pill, or natural sex that doesn’t result in pregnancy.
Here the “Every Sperm is Scared Rule” proponents may also site the Old Testament in regard to an individual being struck down for “spilling his seed”. This, however, is generally taken out of context. Onan was ordered by God to have a child with his brother’s widow. Onan started “doing his thing” and then withdrew. The offence was not that he spilled his seed, the offence was disobeying a direct order! If God told Bob to shake hands with Larry, and Bob only bowed, I’d expect Bob to get struck down too!
From my humble perspective, I can’t see how NFP is any better than any contraception method. I use NFP. I support NFP, because I’m following that 2000 years of accumulated wisdom. But I still think NFP IS contraception and is no different than methods such as a condom, diaphragm, or The Pill.
Well I can’t say that I see any substanitive difference myself, but I would like to compliment you on acknowledging an apparent contradiction in your own beliefs and for doing so in such a constructive manner.
OCs are abortaficient (here, here) and therefore pose a doubly-grave sin.
At least one difference between NFP and condom (and I’ve not always been Catholic, so I’ve done both) is that NFP requires self-discipline. I.e., the difference is not between a latex barrier and a barrier of empty space, but rather a difference in the presence of something going up against the barrier. (And please don’t make me explain… my constitution is far too delicate!)
I think NFP can be practiced (wrongly) from a contraceptive perspective.
Also, I think the difference between natural family planning and artificial contraception is meaningful. Openness to life is maybe the crux–just as in life: we may not want something from God, but we allow Him to have the final say and humble ourself to His will. The practice of NFP allows us to recognize and keep God a part of the marital embrace.
The difference is simple:
With NFP, one is avoiding conception by not having sex. The sanctity of the sex act is preserved.
With contraception, one is avoiding conception while still having sex. The sanctity of the sex act is not preserved.
There’s no difference between NFP and other forms of contraception. Humanity was created with hidden estrus, unlike most other creatures on Earth. If you’ve ever owned a cat, dog, or parrot, you know darn well that there are cues given off when the female is fertile. Some baboons have their butts turn bright reddish orange. We’re not naturally able to tell when intercourse will be effective. What few natural clues women have are very unreliable and difficult to detect. To be able to detect estrus and thus control becoming pregnant is obviously against nature.
Of course, that’s assuming you buy the whole “natural” argument to begin with.
Steve,
The idea that OC is an abortificant is based on old data. It’s the same chemicals as the Morning After pill, which only delays ovulation and slows sperm motility — it doesn’t prevent implantation or cause implanted embryos to be sloughed off.
No one on the pro-Life side wants to publicize that. I wonder why?
“There’s no difference between NFP and other forms of contraception.”
Care to tell us why you think that’s true?
Also, did you read what I said?
Another thought–NFP can be used to achieve conception, hard to say the same for contraceptives.
BTW, liked Tom’s analysis.
Rob, not sure I understand how observing nature’s signs are unnatural. Also not sure that we can apply animal morality (of which I would argue there is none) to humans.
NFP be can’t be contraceptive if you look at the very definition of the word:
Contra – against
Conception
With artificial birth control you deliberately thwart the egg, kill the sperm, destroy normally functioning body structures, make the female body hostile to receiving sperm etc. The very nature of ABC is to work against, or contra to conception.
NFP isn’t contra conception because no sex act occurs to be against!
You know, you’re right that it might feel funny to be having sex by the clock so to speak. Perhaps that is why the church teaches that it is supposed to be for grave serious reasons. It’s to be the exception for Catholic couples, not the norm for Catholic couples. The ideal is to enjoy your marriage, and enjoy the fruits of that marriage.
No one on the pro-Life side wants to publicize that. I wonder why?
Because it’s not true.
“What few natural clues women have are very unreliable and difficult to detect. To be able to detect estrus and thus control becoming pregnant is obviously against nature.”
Uh…no. Actually, they are quite reliable and relatively easy to detect.
“The idea that OC is an abortificant is based on old data. It’s the same chemicals as the Morning After pill, which only delays ovulation and slows sperm motility — it doesn’t prevent implantation or cause implanted embryos to be sloughed off.”
Says you. There are plenty of doctors and pharmacists that would question the studies (actually, I’ve only seen you cite one) used to “prove” this point.
“No one on the pro-Life side wants to publicize that. I wonder why?”
Because they believe, based on sound research and data, that it is wrong.
Stuff!!! We are you? We need you!!!
In the overall realm…NFP is extremely different.
Rob, old data, new data, who gives a flip? The point is that it is very much an open question. The mere fact that OCs fail, even when used as directed (and who says they’re always used as directed anyway) suggests that they don’t absolutely positively prevent ovulation. And given the FACT that they do make the uterus less hospitable to implantation, I think it absolutely incredible that someone would say there is ZERO risk of OCs causing a failure for a fertilized oocyte to implant. It is not plausible on the face of it. What IS that risk quantitatively? Well, that’s perhaps an open question.
The distinction between having intercourse when not fertile and causing infertility through poisons or barriers goes back at least to St. Augustine. See Fr. John Hugo’s book: “St. Augustine on Nature, Sex, and Marriage.”
Don’t get Rob started on Augustine’s views on sex. 😉
Wow, that’s a lot of comments. Let me respond with my humble analysis (and opinion):
Steve:
While I agree that NFP does require self dicipline, I don’t think that is the basis of the church’s teaching. Using a condom takes dicipline too…all you have to do is listen to men (and sometimes women) whining that they hate using them because it inhibits the pleasure.
BV: If your argument that NFP makes one more open to life, I can’t agree. NFP claims to be more effective a preventing conception that other methods, hence less open to life than, say, a condom.
Tom: You counter with this: “with contraception, one is avoiding conception while still having sex.”, in my view, that’s precicely what NFP does, allows one to have sex while still preventing conception. Additionally, I still don’t think that timing sexual acts does much to preserve the “sanctity” of sex any more than The Pill might preserve the sanctity by assisting in timing ovulation.
BV: On your additional thought, I doubt the Catholic teaching is based on the idea that a contraceptive is only allowable when it can also be used for conception. The Pill can (and is sometimes) used to control ovulation cycles in women. In that sense, it can be used to predict fertility and achieve pregnancy the same as NFP.
Elena: By your definition of Contraception, the Pill also is not a contraceptive when used to prolong and time the period of infertility in women. Also, you site “grave and serious reasons” and then go on to say that this means it must be the “exception” case. I disagree here. Serious reasons can be quite commonplace in the life of any individual.
Funky, Elena, Steve: I think one thing is clear on the abortificant issue with OCs: credible Doctors can’t agree, credibile pharmicists can’t agree, and eveyone has an argument for why each study is not credible. Because of this, I don’t think its responsible to claim that we know if OCs have an abortificant effect any more than we know if grape jello has an abortificant effect (on the jello note, its just never been studied ).
Fred: Perhaps some tradition does come from the writings of St. Augustine. However, the fact that a Saint gave an opinion is not sufficient for me. Indeed, the Catholic church regularly distances itself from particular opinions of individual Saints. That is to say, the opinions of Saints do often have merit, and I am certianly willing to give them their proper weight when endorsed by the Chruch, but they are still the opinions of humans and can be falable with some regularity.
Beyond that, what would Augustine say about comparing NFP to other contraceptives?
By your definition of Contraception, the Pill also is not a contraceptive when used to prolong and time the period of infertility in women.
It doesn’t prolong the period of infertility. It artificially makes the woman infertile via the hormonal system. If a women in her childbearing years cannot conceive usually we consider that a pathology. SO in a sense the oral contraceptive or patch, puts the woman in a pathological state. I’d say that’s more than CONTRA ception, it’s CONTRA woman. As a back up it make the cervical mucus and the uterus hostile to sperm. That is also contraceptive.
Also, you site “grave and serious reasons” and then go on to say that this means it must be the “exception” case. I disagree here. Serious reasons can be quite commonplace in the life of any individual.
I don’t. I think we’ve talked ourselves into that, but I don’t think it is.
Powerball tosses his two cents in by quoting from JPII.
Lightwave,
I’m a little confused as to the issue you’re honing in on here:
–If your point is that NFP, like contraceptives, can be used to avoid conception, then I’d agree.
–If your point is that NFP is therefore the same as contraceptives, then I’d disagree. The end result does not make the means equivalent.
Contraceptives prevent/contravene the natural human process of fertility and conception from occurring. NFP does not.
As a result, contraception (unlike NFP): a) contradicts the total self-donation proper to the marital embrace, b) constitutes a re-working of God’s design of sex, and c) manipulates human biology away from its proper functioning.
Contraception leads the human in the wrong direction (we are in control and enforce our own way), whereas properly practiced NFP keeps the focus turned in the right direction (God is in control and we work from his way).
Based on reading JPII’s writings (granted I’m rusty…) I’d always felt that NFP is not contraception, based on the fact that there is not a chance for conception (as discussed above). There is also the element of respect for the spouse added in. The marital act is to be a mutual gift of self, and with any form of contraception (barrier or chemical), the mutual gift is not fully offered and accepted.
In Natural Family PLanning methods, one does not commit any positive act against conception. With contraception one does. If there were absolutely no difference, we wouldn’t be able to distinguish the methods to a degree sufficient for holding this conversation in the first place. If any should argue that observing signs and deciding when and when not to have sex is a positive act against conception, one has merely clarified the nature of the positive act that contraception entails: Contraception is a positive act that is itself an intervening instrumental cause preventing conception. That is, whether by condom, withdrawal, or hormonal pills, contraceptive methods are interventions in the normal progress of the sex act itself. Natural Family Planning does not intervene in the sex act itself. All that I have said is a more complex version of that which was pithily stated by Mr. Smith, above.
Yep.
Lightwave,
“Beyond that, what would Augustine say about comparing NFP to other contraceptives?”
Augustine’s judgement was that intercourse between infertile spouses was permissible. It would seem that infertility is a more effective contraception than NFP or any other means (not 100% of course – because the infertile (Sarah, Elizabeth) sometimes conceive.
If it is permissible to have intercourse during the infertility of old age, it would also seem permissible to have intercourse at other infertile times. Indeed, even those couples who sneer at NFP will have intercourse during monthly infertile periods and during the post-partum nursing time.
Contraception, to the contrary, is an act which makes the body infertile.
Wow, where do I begin? Firstly, I don’t really think you NEED me, Funky, though I am genuinely flattered;) I’m not really sure I’m going to give you what you’re looking for…
Secondly, I’d like to applaud Elena for beautifully defending the true teaching of the church. It is only the church of the USA and similar cultures of death that feels the need to “sell” NFP to couples so inundated with the contraceptive mentality that they will only consider it as a “contraceptive option” if you can prove to them that it “works.” I recently read an article about a Couple to Couple League (CCL) educator who was asked to teach NFP classes in Africa, and her Catholic students were OFFENDED by the comparison to artificial contraception. They were there to learn more about a woman’s body and how a husband can fully communicate (in every sense) with his beloved. I’d like to point out that the Church uses the word GRAVE, not just serious, when describing during what exceptions NFP should be practiced. As an example, anyone who knows me will remember that when my husband and I were married, I was starting my fifth of 6 years of pharmacy school and he was a few weeks into a very crappy, basically minimum wage welding job, coming home with burn holes in his clothes every night. We had serious reasons to wait for a child. As in, I was already close to $50,000 in debt and our combined annual income was less than $15,000. I was pregnant my first cycle into the marriage, and threw up several times a day for the entire school year. You cannot imagine how profoundly that deepened our faith and our marriage. I would not consider our situation to have been “grave,” and I would not change it for the world. It taught us that God cannot be outdone in His generosity. If we take the time to look back to before the time NFP was so fine-tuned and fail-safe, “grave” reasons for not being open to children included anything that would require COMPLETE abstinence (not just during the 5 fertile days per cycle). So if, nowadays, paying off a car, finishing school, or waiting until you can afford a bigger home so your baby can be spoiled with his/her very own nursery with matching crib, changing table and armoire would be reason enough for you to abstain from conjugal relations for a year or more, than by all means consider that grave. Personally, I think the only grave financial reason would be the equivalent of living in a van down by the river. Other grave reasons include medical reasons, like requiring chemotherapy or radiation for cancer (which would be abortifacient anyway). “I’m just not ready” does not hold water with the tradition of the Catholic church.
Moving on:
“The Pill can (and is sometimes) used to control ovulation cycles in women. In that sense, it can be used to predict fertility and achieve pregnancy the same as NFP.”
This statement could not be more false. Please do some actual research before doing any more foot-in-mouth tricks. While many women start on the pill to “regulate” what they consider an irregular cycle, what most of them don’t realize is that just because they don’t have the standard 28-day cycle the pill provides they are not necessarily “irregular.” A woman’s cycle can be affected by any sort of mental and/or physical stress (like an illness or job change) and will hardly ever be identical cycle-to-cycle. Length of cycle varies from woman to woman based on a variety of factors, and painful cycles can be alleviated by other means. Aside from that, as shown in another article published by CCL, women who wanted to stop the pill to try to become pregnant began charting cycles while still on the pill. These cycles looked very similar to a woman’s normal, unmedicated cycle, precisely because that’s what your standard triphasic OC is meant to do. But these women had blood levels drawn to test if and when ovulation had occurred, and actual ovulation, if it happened, did not correspond with charting in the least. It was not until at least a few cycles off the pill that charting was actually predictive for fertility.
As far as the abortifacient effects of the pill, I’m assuming that this is where my “expertise” is desired, but I don’t have much more to say than what Steve and Funky already said. Comparing the pill to Jell-O is more ridiculous than I would have expected from you, and shows that you’re really not paying attention to the argument or the gravity of the situation.
I have to go now because it’s bedtime, but I’d like to wrap up by stating that viewing marital union in terms of contraception alone just goes to show how far the Catholic Church in this country has fallen prey to the mentality of the culture of death. What happened to modeling a marriage after the wedding feast of the Lamb? About living the icon of marriage as a way to teach your children about Christ’s nuptial relationship with his Bride, the Church? Why are we so busy looking at how far we can go without “breaking the law” instead of really trying to live as images of God in both our marital giving and receiving?
It truly saddens my heart when I see how the culture of death has permeated the Church and how it has perverted the use of NFP.
In the interests of full disclosure, the diligent searcher will find a comment war between myself (the discontented Protestant) and Eric and Jerry (on the side of Church teaching) in which I pose arguments very similar to what Lightwave has presented here, at least as regards barrier contraception. (I’ve long been convinced about the murderous tendencies of OCs and thank God, we have never used them.) I say all that to say I know where Lightwave is coming from, and to be fair to him, he says he is living in accord with Church teaching. If so, he has committed his will to following the Lord. The intellectual assent will eventually catch up.
When I started seriously considering the RCC, a few things (or so I thought) stood in the way: Immaculate conception and assumption of the BVM, transubstantiation, papal supremacy, and barrier contraception. I became convinced that faith was acting AS IF certain propositions were true, i.e., that it was a conscious act of the will far more than it was intellectual assent to truth. I did not know HOW to ACT as though the immaculate conception and assumption of the BVM were true, except perhaps not to speak against such doctrines. Similarly, I did not know how to ACT as though transubstantation or papal supremacy was true. But contraception? That’s an easy one: If you wanna act AS THOUGH it’s true, then don’t do it. All the others were a problem with my brain, but church teaching on contraception did not contradict my brain nearly as much as my… hrm… private parts. Such a state of affairs seemed to me to be subhuman. I may not be able to make my brain obey Church teaching on (what seemed) esoteric dogma, but I certainly ought to be able to make my… hrm… private parts obey. So we did begin to obey this teaching. On this Easter Vigil, we’ll (all 7 of us, plus one in the oven thanks to NFP) be entering the RCC… and I think in large part it will be because of our obedience in this private (pun intended) matter.
no comments other than to say congrats to Steve & family on entering the Church! I think I remember that comment war… if it was the same one that caused me to post about NFP at my own blog. (see feb ’05 archives)
Congrats on the new baby, too 🙂 You’ll be in our prayers.
So Funky, I’d kind of like to hear if you still view NFP as just another form of contraception?
Um…I’m not sure I ever said I thought it was. I’m certainly sympathetic to Lightwave’s arguments, but Lightwave wrote this post, not I.
i just want to give a shout out to stuff. i particularly liked your discussion of grave reason.
Yeah, Stuff’s stuff was good stuff.
I actually want to apologize for any snideness of tone in my previous post – it’s harder for me to control my emotions when I’m pregnant. I don’t want to seem like I don’t sympathize with Lightwave’s point of view; to be honest, Squat and I began our marriage with a similar one and it took that first kick in the rumpus to knock us out of it. I mean, come on, I was in training to be a fully self-sufficient, ultra-feminist professional woman! I now see the lies and snares that were placed along that path, and I thank God for saving me from it.
I still want to emphasize that I feel the focus of marriage and parenthood should be shifted, and speaking to other women in particular, I will leave ya’ll with this quote from Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty:
“The most Important Person on earth is a mother. She cannot claim the honor of having built Notre Dame Cathedral. She need not. She has built something more magnificent than any cathedral – a dwelling for an immortal soul, the tiny perfection of her baby’s body…
The angels have not been blessed with such a grace. They cannot share in God’s creative miracle to bring new saints to Heaven. Only a human mother can. Mothers are closer to God the Creator than any other creature; God joins forces with mothers in perfomring this act of creation….
What on God’s good earth is more glorious than this: to be a mother?”
Oh, that’s so beautiful!!
Yikes. I’ve stirred up the hornets nest! Let me respond for those who are still reading:
Elena: I don’t agree that artificially doing something that we’d usually consider a pathology can be defined as a bad thing by its nature. Indeed, most drugs work by altering the human body to work in a way that we would not want it to usually work, but is important for the treatment of disease, or used for some other desired effect (caffeine comes to mind).
BV: You say “Contraceptives prevent/contravene the natural human process of fertility and conception from occurring. NFP does not.” I disagree, NFP has the direct, intentional effect of preventing a fertile action (i.e. sex while fertile), allowing only infertile action (i.e. sex while not-fertile), thus still preventing conception from occurring. Perhaps this is just semantics, but it seems to matter in this case.
Roz: I can’t say this enough times: NFP claims to have less of a chance of conception than other contraceptives! Hence, there is more chance of conceiving with The Pill or a Condom.
Mark T: You say that “[with NFP] one does not commit any positive act against conception. With contraception one does”. I call this the Matchstick Man argument. A robber holds a gun to your head and takes your money (what I might call a positive act), so that’s illegal. A Con-Artist gets you to give your money to him by fooling you. He didn’t take it against your will. That’s still illegal.
You also say that “contraceptive methods are interventions in the normal progress of the sex act itself.” I think that NFP intervenes as well…it prevents the act from beginning. Again, this is the slippery slope of “where do you draw the line.”
Fred: You say “[sex] between infertile spouses was permissible”. But it is important that the intent here is not to prevent conception. Just as accidentally walking out in front of a bus is not considered suicide, but doing so intentionally is suicide, intention maters. With NFP, the intention is decidedly to either prevent conception or cause conception.
Stuff: Geeze, how long did it take you to write all that (not that I’m complaining)? I can’t agree with your definition of Grave at “I think the only grave financial reason would be the equivalent of living in a van down by the river”, I can go on to describe what I think a good definition of grave is, but I’ll have to call this a matter of opinion, else we will be debating the definitions of words for pages and pages.
To your statement “This statement could not be more false. Please do some actual research before doing any more foot-in-mouth tricks.” As much as I’m a fan of personal attacks, I don’t see your point. Though you state that other things can affect an ovulation cycle, and there are other methods, you never seem to state anything that disagrees with “The Pill can (and is sometimes) used to control ovulation cycles in women. In that sense, it can be used to predict fertility and achieve pregnancy the same as NFP.”
You missed my point on the Jell-O (perhaps because I didn’t make it well). The point is that the facts on abortifacient effects are as credible as the “Twinkie defense”. This is an area where people try to use intuition to lend credibility to a less-than-credible finding. Unfortunately, intuition can be, and often is, wrong.
Squat: I find your statement interesting. Can you elaborate on the connection between NFP and the “culture of death”? Perhaps itÂ’s a worth topic for an article?
Elena: I don’t agree that artificially doing something that we’d usually consider a pathology can be defined as a bad thing by its nature. Indeed, most drugs work by altering the human body to work in a way that we would not want it to usually work, but is important for the treatment of disease, or used for some other desired effect (caffeine comes to mind).
Most drugs (in this case let’s use drugs to mean licitly used medications) work to alter the body from an illness or a pathology.
Fertility is not an illness or a pathology.
And while yes, one may use caffiene for the late night buzz to stay awake during finals or to perk up i the morning, you certainly couldn’t put the need for a mile stimulant i the same importance with the life-giving, God imaging, power of human beings to procreate. It’s an apples to kiwi type of comparison.
The connection that I made was that NFP has been PERVERTED by the culture of death(COD). It is a very sad thing that the COD has grown to such a degree that it has even permeated the Church. Lucifer has been prepping the world for a long time. As Christopher West states in his prologue of “Theology of the Body Explained”: “The devil cannot create out of nothing. As a creature himself, all he can do is take what God created to reveal the mystery of his own Fatherhood and twist it, distort it – or, more aptly, tempt us to do so. So if we are looking for that which is most sacred in this world, all we need do is look for that which Satan most often profanes: the gift of the body and sexuality.” Basicly: Lucifer has been at this since Adam and Eve.
Let me see if I can convey this right.(try to follow if you can, i’m not sure where this will take us.) Since the Fall it has been Lucifer vs God. Satan has sought to destroy God. God is love (i think we can all agree with this). What is the most loving act a man and a woman can share? Sex(i think we can all agree with this too 😉 ). Now what has Lucifer done to sex? He has twisted and destorted it to the point that the world at large believes “if it feels good, do it”. This means anytime, anywhere, with anyone, and with any devices that will help you to “feel good”. Lucifer has taken the love (i.e. God) out of sex. This, I’m sure, is no suprise to anyone. Sex is now viewed as just a thing for pleasure not as an act of creation. What did God do with his abundant love? He created. He created man and woman to share in His love and to share this love with, each other, in this creative act. Those who view NFP as “catholic contraception” are taking the creative aspect out of sex. I dare to say that if there were no such thing as NFP that those who use it as “catholic contraception” would go against chuch teaching and open themselves to using sinfull forms of contraception. If this is not the devil twisting and perverting things, I don’t know what is.
I think the only grave financial reason would be the equivalent of living in a van down by the river”, I can go on to describe what I think a good definition of grave is, but I’ll have to call this a matter of opinion, else we will be debating the definitions of words for pages and pages.
This would be a good discussion that I wish someone would have. I have some friends who decided to stop at 3 kids because they only had a 4 bedroom home and it was important to them that each child have their own room. I heard of a lady who prevented pregnancy because she was going to be her sister’s bridesmaid and she didn’t want to be pregnant at the wedding?
I’m definitely leaning towards “Not grave.”
My own definition of “grave” means that when it’s my turn to be judged, and I’m standing before the Lord to give my “grave” reasons, I’m not going to feel stupid in front of the communion of saints for saying something that in the big picture, was rather silly. For after all, how could a lack of bunk beds stand in the way of creating another eternal soul? things that make you wonder.
Lightwave, if NFP bothers you so much, if you are tempted to use it as a contraceptive, i.e., to limit the size of your family for ILlicit reasons, then by ALL MEANS DON’T USE IT! If you cannot understand or agree with what Mark Thompson so eloquently wrote, viz.,
In Natural Family Planning methods, one does not commit any positive act against conception. With contraception one does.
then I cannot help but wonder whether there is some sort of intestinal pathology afflicting you. The act of Not Having Sex is NOT a positive act, ergo is an INaction that is UNlike any other contraceptive method, i.e., one that involves some sort of positive action, like popping a pill, getting the snip-snip, or donning a rubber. You’re a smart guy… so what’s the problem here? Are you just out intentionally trying to dredge up stupid reasons to doubt the Church’s teaching in this matter, a teaching that you are otherwise disposed to obey? This MAKES **NO** SENSE!!!
Married couples are perfectly free to have or not have sex, the Church makes no demands on them… provided they at least have sex some time. What is there NOT to get!?!?!!!!! If watching the calendar, taking temperature, checking cervical mucus bothers you, then BY ALL MEANS: Don’t Do it!!!
Now this whole grape jello is just so absolutely stupid I was hoping not even to have to bring it up. But alas you press this idiotic analogy. Jello is not formulated to prevent ovulation, there’s no reason to suspect it would. People have been eating animal sinew (rendered or otherwise) for about as long as people have been on earth. OCs, by way of contrast, ARE formulated to prevent ovulation. Modern OCs are “better” because they work with lower doses of hormones than the old-fashioned ones. But the payback for this is that they ALSO render the lining of the uterus inhospitable to implantation… because the “effectiveness” of OCs is defined as the percentage of women who use the drug who over a certain period of time do not have a detectable pregnancy.
Given the simple facts about how OCs work, and the simple fact that OCs fail occasionally (I happen to know two such failures, i.e., humans, personally) it is ludicrous ON THE FACE OF IT to suggest that OCs **never** cause the failure to implant of a fertilized oocyte, which for those not paying attention is a human being in the eyes of the Church. It only remains an open question of what this likelihood is… 50%, 10%, 1%, 0.0001%… what risk are you willing to take that by a free-will and unnecessary act you’ll “unintentionally” abort your baby?
The Morning After Pill iss (is and only is) a high dose (like 4X) of ordinary OC. It is thought that it will prevent conception if it hasn’t already occurred, but if it HAS occurred, the lining of the uterus will be quickly rendered by the drug to be inhospitable to implantation.
And we’re talking about the pill why? Because the teaching of the Church is not clear? Because its rationality is in doubt? NO. I DON’T KNOW WHY THE BLOODY HELL WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THIS?!?!!!!
[/harumph]
The NFP question is fine, but the whole Pill thing gets on my nerves.
😉
Steve, Elena, you guys are awesome!
Lightwave, I said I was sorry. No more personal attacks, I promise. (sigh) Let me repeat and try to paraphrase the important part about my previous argument:
“… and actual ovulation, if it happened, did not correspond with charting in the least. It was not until at least a few cycles off the pill that charting was actually predictive for fertility.”
Meaning: while OC’s makes menstruation more predictable, they make ovulation and hence fertility, infinitely less predictable. That means OC’s make it infinitely harder achieve pregnancy. Do I need to clarify further?
Not to be the “grave reasons” police, and I admit I am not qualified to step into the lives of other couples to condemn or condone, I am sticking by my statement that a good way of measuring a good enough reason is whether you would be willing and able to abstain completely for an indefinite amount of time. I happened to look to the Catechism for additional guidance on this matter, and what I found was a description of marriage which repeatedly used terms like “total gift of self.” After such definition, the fecundity of marriage is described as “a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful.” Only after addressing a couple’s call to give life and responsibly educate children does the CCC talk about the responsible regulation of procreation, strictly in terms of child spacing, and with explicit instruction that a couple’s desire is “not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.”
Finally, this quote is taken from the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes:
“…the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.”
May I repeat the phrase OBJECTIVE CRITERIA. I take this to mean whatever reasons you have or you think you have MUST be evaluated in the light of established Church teaching, including this one:
“it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”
Just a very long-winded way to say, I’m with you, Elena, lack of bunk-beds doesn’t count!
By the way, I am sooooo early-90’s – can someone tell me how to intalicize stuff?
Dear Lightwave,
I think you’re right, semantics may be muddying the waters here.
It seems to me that your argument boils down to: ‘Contraception is any method used to prevent conception. Drugs and barriers are methods used to prevent conception. NFP is a method used to prevent conception. Therefore drugs, barriers, and NFP are all forms of contraception.’ Said differently: ‘If your intent is to _not conceive_, then you are contracepting.’
To which I would reply: ‘Abstaining from an otherwise good act for just reasons, is not the same as perverting it.’ (I’ll set aside the issue of just reasons for the time being so as to focus on the main issue of abstaining versus perverting.)
For example, fasting lunch for the purpose of mortification of the flesh is not the same as binging and vomiting lunch due to insecurities. They both result in an empty stomach, but one is properly ordered and the other is disordered and damaging (physically & psychologically).
Forgoing intercourse during fertile periods to space the births of children, is different from engaging in intercourse and deliberating attacking one of its two purposes via chemical, barrier, etc. Married couples have a right (and daresay duty) to the conjugal act and to plan their family. As part of that responsibility, they can chose to forgo sex for morally licit reasons. On the contrary, there is no morally licit reason to pervert the sex act by modifying it.
Borrowing from Christopher West: ‘non-creative and anti-creative are different.’
This is not to say that NFP can’t be practiced (wrongly) as anti-creative. NFP by itself is not a “get out of sin free” card. As in all moral acts, to be virtuous, they must be done for the right reasons. You can just never use contraceptive products for the right reasons. You can forgo sex with your spouse for the right reasons.
Does this help to explain the difference?
(BTW, thank you for your patience through this discussion and your responses which have helped to clarify the issues at question here.)
Let me see if I can tie this all together. I’m feeling a bit enlighted by the comments (or perhaps sadly misguided, depending on the feedback I get next).
BV: Thank you! Perhaps I should have just written what you suggested my argument boils down to in the first place: –SNIP– ‘Contraception is any method used to prevent conception. Drugs and barriers are methods used to prevent conception. NFP is a method used to prevent conception. Therefore drugs, barriers, and NFP are all forms of contraception.’ Said differently: ‘If your intent is to _not conceive_, then you are contracepting.’
To which I would reply: ‘Abstaining from an otherwise good act for just reasons, is not the same as perverting it.’ (I’ll set aside the issue of just reasons for the time being so as to focus on the main issue of abstaining versus perverting.)
–SNIP–
To that end, my point is NFP or Condom, the result is the same, and your intent is the same. But your intent matters, and makes the difference.
Squat: I agree with many of your points. I think what defines whether NFP is “perverted”, as you say, is perhaps the intentions of the indivudal using it.
Stuff/Elena: I think your comments on grave matters is also important, though I guess I feel the words leave too much wiggle room. But if one is not using the “graveness test”, then I think one’s intentions are clear.
Steve: Please relax.
I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement on the “pathology” issue, so lets agree to disagree there. I just see it differently than you do.
By the way, I don’t particularly see my individual use of NFP at issue here. If I suggested that I did, I appologize.
On the OC abortificant issue, its not a matter of probability. From a perspective of one who doesn’t believe the hype, the probability is 0% (or, to quote my “twinkie defense,” is statistically insignificant…that is to say that the measurment is within the random variation one would expect among separate sets of test subject under identical conditions).
To All: The bottom line of what I’m getting out of all the points of view here (including mine) is, as I mentioned before, “NFP or Condom, the result is the same, and your intent is the same. But your intent matters, and makes the difference.” Which goes to my original point, I just don’t see a difference between contraceptive methods.
I just don’t see a difference between contraceptive methods.
You don’t see the difference between having an orgasm and abstaining? Gee, my husband and I understood that one immediately!
😉
Um…Elena…The having and not having of an orgasm is an orthogonal issue to contraception.
Uh…Gesundheit!
Hey to us regular married lay Joe-6-pack, Catholic folk… that is the major difference. Kind of the first one we noticed. It’s so obvious. How can you not notice the difference?
And truth be told, that’s the real reason people whine so much about NFP. It’s really what people are thinking about.
Just keeping it real.
“Hey to us regular married lay Joe-6-pack, Catholic folk… that is the major difference. Kind of the first one we noticed. It’s so obvious. How can you not notice the difference?”
I’m still a bit lost. Whether one does or does not have an orgasm is quite independent of whether or not contraception is used. Since you mention “gesundheit”, I’ll use sneezing as an example. Let’s say my wife takes medication that somehow prevents colds. If I sneeze, spewing my mucus at her, she will be grossed out, but not get sick. If I sneeze into a tissue, she won’t get messy or sick. If she just happens to be immune to the cold I have (for whatever reason), if I sneeze on her, she’ll be messy but not sick. If she has no immunity, takes no medication, and I don’t use a tissue, she’ll be messy and there’s a chance she’ll be sick. Any way you look at it, I sneezed and mucus came out.
The medicine is OC, the tissue is a condom, and immunity is NFP. Orgasm, like a sneeze, is independent of the means used to prevent potential consequences.
Specifically, unless something is busted, the guy will have an orgasm. That’s a given. Whether the gal has one, though, might be influenced by the use or non-use of barrier methods. I’d still argue that it’s mostly independent of that, though.
“NFP or Condom, the result is the same, and your intent is the same. But your intent matters, and makes the difference.”
In ethics, there are many things which matter: as you have stated, results and intent matter; you forget to include means. With the Church, I contend, perhaps at a variance with the others commenting here, that *means* are what makes the crucial difference, rather than intent.
Although the ends are the same, and the intent may very well be the same, the means are objectively different, and that is what makes the difference.
Namely, the re-ordering of fertile-period sex to artificially render it infertile, which ontologically changes the act itself, versus the abstinence from fertile-period sex, which, obviously enough, does not alter its objective nature.
Specifically, unless something is busted, the guy will have an orgasm.
Just curious because that’s a new one on me. How does one have an orgasm if one is abstaining? (assuming of course that one isn’t masturbating and not talking about involuntary orgasms.)
But getting back to LIghtwave’s comment:
“Which goes to my original point, I just don’t see a difference between contraceptive methods.”
The most obvious difference – sorry, is in the orgasm. One couple is having em, the other isn’t!
On the OC abortificant issue, its not a matter of probability. From a perspective of one who doesn’t believe the hype, the probability is 0% (or, to quote my “twinkie defense,” is statistically insignificant…that is to say that the measurment is within the random variation one would expect among separate sets of test subject under identical conditions).
Unless you willing to let “perspective” alone stand as a valid claim to objective authority, I’d appreciate sources for your confidence on this bit.
“Just curious because that’s a new one on me. How does one have an orgasm if one is abstaining? (assuming of course that one isn’t masturbating and not talking about involuntary orgasms.)”
Ahhhh…Well, unless I missed it (if so, please show me where), you didn’t specify that the lack of orgasm was due to lack of intercourse. 😉 I wasn’t even thinking of the times sex is avoided (when the woman is fertile or menstruating). I was thinking of sex during infertile times.
Dear Lightwave,
I’m estatic I was able to connect! Though, I must say, since I can’t see where you’ve directly refuted my counter-argument, I’m still a little hazy on where the point of departure is. As a help to zero in on where we’re different, I’ve laid out a line of reasoning below. Let me know at which point you disagree.
As a backdrop, I am using the classical evaluation of morality which depends on: a) the object chosen (in this case the action or inaction), b) the intention (i.e. the purpose pursued in the action/inaction), and c) the circumstances (which do not change the morality, but impact its degree of goodness/evil and culpability).
1. Do you agree that the use of contraceptive drugs or barriers *is* objectively immoral? (i.e., that without considering intent or circumstances, contraceptive drugs or barriers can never be moral). If not, then please explain how actively thwarting one of the two ends of sex can be considered moral.
2. Do you agree that abstaining from sex within marriage *is not* objectively immoral? (i.e., that without considering intent or circumstances, abstaining is not of itself immoral). If not, then please explain how abstaining itself is in every case immoral.
If we are agreed on #1 and #2 above, then all that remains is to establish under what intent abstaining from sex can be moral/immoral. I’m going to leave that issue aside, since it’s outside the scope of what I’m trying to accomplish at this stage.
I want to re-emphasize again (because I think it may be the point you’re driving at), NFP can be wrongly practiced with contraceptive intentions. It becomes immoral at that point. However, it is not the NFP which is contraceptive, but the way it is being used. NFP can be rightly practiced without contraceptive intentions. It can be practiced not with the intent to avoid conception, though that may be its immediate effect, but with the intent to orderly grow a family. At that point it doesn’t become a “way to avoid another kid”, but a way to fulfill the duty of raising up a family.
Let me know if this helps.