NFP for "Spacing"

[Benedicta00]

But, by using NFP as intented you ARE removing the reproductive aspects of it by avoiding sex during fertile times of the month so how is NFP moral ?

Because your intent may not be to reject children. As I said somewhere else the difference is are you NFPing so you won't get pregnant at all or doing so and if it does happens, that is fine by you? Would you feel NFP failed if you became pregnant and be upset or would you say it worked doing what it is supposed to by letting God be in control? The difference is the mentality, the outlook, the mind set. The reason why you are doing it.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Charlie,
Was that directed to me? If so then maybe I need to be more blunt. Condoms are wrong because it is morally wrong to place a physical barrier, a thing, between you are your spouse during the act. Is that more clear?

Huh ?

I was asking you why NFP is moral in the intent is to avoid sex ( and therefore withhold the reproductive aspects of yourself) during fertile times of the month)

There is no need for you to be more blunt.

 

[Benedicta00]

And BTW Charlie, I hear this weak argument all the time, just how do you remove something from the actual act if there is no act being done? Abstaining is simply not a sin.

 

[Benedicta00]

Huh ?

I was asking you why NFP is moral in the intent is to avoid sex ( and therefore withhold the reproductive aspects of yourself) during fertile times of the month)

There is no need for you to be more blunt.

I was referring to the post before that one where you quoted yourself.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Because your intent may not be to reject children. As I said somewhere else the difference is are you NFPing so you won't get pregnant at all or doing so and if it does happens, that is fine by you? Would you feel NFP failed if you became pregnant and be upset or would you say it worked doing what it is supposed to by letting God be in control? The difference is the mentality, the outlook, the mind set. The reason why you are doing it.

I could say that either about any from of birth control. And if we agree that this all has to do with intentionality and attitude (and I'm willing to agree that it does), then we are down to arguing natural verus artifical means of achiving this end which, unfortunately is not the argue Humane Vitiae uses to reject ABC.
Humane Vitae claims ABC seperates unity from procreation and I'm still lost as to how NFP'ers get around the intentionality of seperating the two and ABC'er don't.

With me ?

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I was referring to the post before that one where you quoted yourself.

Well thats just called not knowing how to do an "edit" properly.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

And BTW Charlie, I hear this weak argument all the time, just how do you remove something from the actual act if there is no act being done? Abstaining is simply not a sin.

I hear this weak counter aguement too. How do you call a month of monitoring and charting to ensure you know the exact moment that ovation occurs not and intentional act ?

And while abstaining is a nice noble word it is still just another word for avoiding.

 

[Benedicta00]

I could say that either about any from of birth control.

No you could not, doing that would mean you are just fooling yourself because they are evil in themselves. They no need help to be that way because they are designed to render contraception/pregnancy/implantation of a embryo impossible. If you take the ABC you are in reality saying you are not becoming pregnant.

I am yet to meet someone who thinks that they will do what they can to not get pregnant but let's see if God will make me pregnant anyway. That is rather ridiculous to have your mindset that way, it is a contradiction to use ABC and be open to life, it is down right silly. God isn't going to force a pregnancy on you if you are doing your best by chemically or by using foreign objects designed to have all sorts of backs ups if you do conceive to reject the baby.

He does respect our choices and our free will. Saying that you will use ABC that science has done all it could to render conception and pregnancy, life itself impossible, and saying if God let's it happen, oh well, is testing God, don't you think?

And if we agree that this all has to do with intentionality and attitude (and I'm willing to agree that it does), then we are down to arguing natural verus artifical means of achiving this end which, unfortunately is not the argue Humane Vitiae uses to reject ABC.
Humane Vitae claims ABC seperates unity from procreation and I'm still lost as to how NFP'ers get around the intentionality of seperating the two and ABC'er don't.

We have explained this a dozen times, because we are for one, talking about intent but also a physical immoral act apart from that. Anything artificial is compromising the act, period regardless of your intent. Combine with intent to close yourself of from life, you are piling sin on top of sin. If you commit no sin in your body by using NFP but in your heart then that is where the sin lies. NFP is not evil itself, but ABC of all kind is.

 

[Benedicta00]

I hear this weak counter aguement too. How do you call a month of monitoring and charting to ensure you know the exact moment that ovation occurs not and intentional act ?

And while abstaining is a nice noble word it is still just another word for avoiding.

There is no physical sin being committed for one so let’s just get that out the way. The only sin that would be potentially committed is the intent. Is your intent pure, for reasons that are legitimate and sincere, like illness, high risk, or lack of money, no job, out of work, or caring for a disabled person, ect or do you just want to save instead to buy a new SUV or maybe kids get on your nerves and you like sleeping late, traveling and coming and going as you please, so you get a dog instead and call him your baby?

 

[Benedicta00]

And while abstaining is a nice noble word it is still just another word for avoiding.

Not really, it can also be a great sacrifice, not having children for other reasons that are serious and sacrificial in nature, like because you are battling a illness. Abstaining then and not being able to be blessed with kids and not being able to be together for a period of time is really a sacrifice. Don’t you think?

I think, Charlie, this is boiling down to how you tend to view things.

 

[geocajun]

But, by using NFP as intented you ARE removing the reproductive aspects of it by avoiding sex during fertile times of the month so how is NFP moral ?

I think thats what your missing Charlie - the OBJECT of sex is NEVER comprimised with NFP because when a couple uses NFP both aspects - unitive AND procreative are respected.

I do not think you actually read my post. It was NOT about intentionality.

When couples use unnatural birth control, the OBJECT of SEX is ALWAYS comprimised, so the INTENTION means diddly. The act is ALWAYS Immoral.

With NFP, the intention IS relevant, only because the OBJECT is good - a bad intention can still make it a bad act.

Bold, Italicised, underlined, and color coded for your reading pleasure

 

[Ampmonster]

amen! God left a way for married couples who cant handle a kid/kids for whatever reasonable situation to still enjoy the unity aspect of sex with out removing the possiblity of God going, "no, wait, ya'll are getting another one but ill get you through it."

 

[marciadietrich]

I am going to have to slightly disagree. Contraception doesn't make having a child "impossible" ... many, many people have children while using some sort of birth control.
Part of the reason for that failure rate is that people using birth control have sex without regard to the fertility cycle, will have sex during the time a women is fertile, and they are either careless or the birth control method has a failure rate.. and viola, a pregnancy. All three of mine qualify on that ... though that would be most likely because we just decided to skip using the condom and did so without great regard to if I was fertile or not at the time. But all birth control has a failure rate and doesn't render procreation impossible. It attempts that. But I think NFP attempts to prevent pregnancy as well, just that when the couple comes together there isn't anything done during the act itself nor any chemical alterations.

I have seen on another board an announcement where the lady had used NFP and was now pregnant. She saiid it wasn't a NFP failure, and in the same post said since she shouldn't have been able to get pregnant wanted to know what possibly she did wrong so it wouldn't happen next time. Seemed a contradiction. "No it didn't fail, but what went wrong? "

Also, the object in NFP isn't good, it is morally neutral. Contraception is bad/evil. NFP neutral and why it is dependent on intent to determine if there is sinfulness. Just like you can sin either your actions or in inaction - "... I have sinned in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do ..."

Inaction is morally neutral and depends on intent and situation. Certain actions are always immoral, such as murder or birth control, though may not be mortal sin depending on culpability.

The main thing I'm not sure of, is it possible for someone to willfully use NFP in such a way it would be grave or serious and a mortal sin? Not sure on that since abstinence in itself is neutral.

If I'm wrong on all that, where am I off course?

Marcia

 

[geocajun]

Also, the object in NFP isn't good, it is morally neutral. Contraception is bad/evil. NFP neutral and why it is dependent on intent to determine if there is sinfulness. Just like you can sin either your actions or in inaction - "... I have sinned in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do ..."

Marcia, the Object of NFP is respecting sexuality in family planning - that is a good thing.

We should be more specific about what we are judging the moral quality of here - The Church has in no uncertain terms, spoken to the moral quality of NFP being good - not nuetral

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.

We are judging the moral quality of the act of sex using contraception or using NFP.

In order for any act to be good, it must have both a good object AND a good intention.

 

[geocajun]

also..

Inaction is morally neutral and depends on intent and situation. Certain actions are always immoral, such as murder or birth control, though may not be mortal sin depending on culpability.

Birth control is NOT always immoral. NFP is a form of birth control. Contraception is always immoral.

The main thing I'm not sure of, is it possible for someone to willfully use NFP in such a way it would be grave or serious and a mortal sin? Not sure on that since abstinence in itself is neutral.

NFP can be used as contraceptin which is a mortal sin. The sin is in the act of having selfish sex with a bad intention, not the act of abstaining.

 

[Benedicta00]

I am going to have to slightly disagree. Contraception doesn't make having a child "impossible" ... many, many people have children while using some sort of birth control.
Part of the reason for that failure rate is that people using birth control have sex without regard to the fertility cycle, will have sex during the time a women is fertile, and they are either careless or the birth control method has a failure rate.. and viola, a pregnancy.

The point I am trying to make is it is really putting God to the test by using a method that was designed to take all precautions humanly possible at this time in technology to render it impossible and say that if God wants to, He'll make it happen in spite of it.

NFP can be applied to this to when you follow it to the letter and be ultra conservative in abstaining. If done for reasons contraire to God’s will and a unwillingness to be open to life, I think you are testing God by saying He’ll make it happen if He wants in spite of all this, that is the only way I will be open.

 

[geocajun]

oh yea, one more thing

I am going to have to slightly disagree. Contraception doesn't make having a child "impossible"

The object of contraception is to make procreation impossible that is why it is disordered.
The object of partial abstinence (NFP) is to space children through respecting God, sex, and eachothers bodies, which is a good thing.
If the intention of using NFP is to make procreation impossible, then it is also a contraception and therefore sinful.

 

[geocajun]

The point I am trying to make is it is really putting God to the test by using a method that was designed to take all precautions humanly possible at this time in technology to render it impossible and say that if God wants to, He'll make it happen in spite of it.

I like to say "God does not will that we ever commit sin, but we still do it..."
Just because God wants to give us a baby, does not mean we are incapable of working against His Grace by making our bodies hostile to new life.
The whole, "God will deny my will, and make miracles happen to get around my sin" theory is fantasy.

 

[Benedicta00]

I like to say "God does not will that we ever commit sin, but we still do it..."
Just because God wants to give us a baby, does not mean we are incapable of working against His Grace by making our bodies hostile to new life.
The whole, "God will deny my will, and make miracles happen to get around my sin" theory is fantasy.

Exactly. It’s a matter of our free will choice to seek our own will over God's will for us. He is going to respect what we choice for ourselves.

 

[marciadietrich]

oh yea, one more thing

The object of contraception is to make procreation impossible that is why it is disordered.
The object of partial abstinence (NFP) is to space children through respecting God, sex, and eachothers bodies, which is a good thing.
If the intention of using NFP is to make procreation impossible, then it is also a contraception and therefore sinful.

Yeah, I agree that the object (goal) of contraception is an attempt to make procreation impossible - at that particular moment at least.

It seems a very fine line between "spacing" using NFP trying to avoid conception if it is being done at all strictly and trying to make conception "impossible." I understand there is a learning curve involved, and usually they suggest you be strict with NFP at first until you learn your body's signals. But a decision to space children and taking action to space children, especially strict charting, is an attempt to avoid procreation, to make it as unlikely as possible.

I'm still not sure that NFP is a good object, am thinking on it. Sure I've heard it regarded as neutral, and though the catechism reference seemed to indicate good could come from it, assuming proper use and intent ... but " is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality " doesn't seem to state outright that it is good. Just that it isn't bad.

Anyhow, thanks for the reply.

Marcia