But it has a lot in common with brain surgery as a moral matter.
Not everyone who has a brain and uses her brain needs to know how to do it, or what is involved in having it done, for example.
Doing it for other than serious reasons - or even for the wrong sort of serious reasons - is morally wicked, as another example.
Whether or not doing it is morally licit in a particular case depends on a lot of intimate knowledge about the persons involved. (Not just about the patient either: about everyone involved).
The notion that NFP - understood as a natural method to limit or prevent pregnancies - is good in itself is like the notion that brain surgery is good in itself. That is, both notions are wrong.
One key difference between NFP and brain surgery though is that there are always alternatives to NFP which don't end up with someone dying; whereas sometimes there is no alternative, other than death, to brain surgery.
I remain unconvinced that NFP is necessarily a good thing in a significant number of actual cases. It seems to me that if the reasons are serious enough to warrant NFP, they are probably - most or all of the time - serious enough to warrant abstinence. That doesn't mean that NFP is morally illicit in those cases (though it might be if the risks involved in pregnancy are grave enough). But it does mean that NFP, as a behavioral tool in the moral toolbox - and quite unlike brain surgery - is probably dispensible.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
It seems to me that if the reasons are serious enough to warrant NFP, they are probably - most or all of the time - serious enough to warrant abstinence.
Now do you mean permanent abstinence? Because the way NFP works is through temporary abstinence.
I'm not really disagreeing, but after seeing a lot of younger Catholics, my wife and I have began to wonder if couples who think they have a valid enough reason to use NFP, and can do so (abstinence isn't always easy, especially for the wife during her fertile phase), maybe do have a reason to delay having another child.
Certainly I'm not trying to say that's a well thought-out position, and not even something that affects my life at the present moment (and I don't expect it to, at least not for the next two or so years).
One reason that I do think that NFP is useful to know is that we know several couples who have had a lot of trouble having children at all, and the fertility charting has helped them to conceive.
I'll respond here since I've provoked a post.
First of all, I have the utmost of respect for you, and I'm sorry if my post sounds like a "shut up."
But I must seriously question the overall thrust of your last two posts on NFP. Since you brought up facts and principles in your response to me, I ask you: what facts or principles do you have to support your suggestion that NFP is often practiced illicitly, or that there is a cult of NFP?
You write:
"Mind you, I think that NFP can be and probably often is illicit because of intentions and circumstances: that there may well be a kind of "cult of NFP" that treats it as Catholic birth control despite rationalizations to the contrary. I specifically think that the notion that every Catholic married couple should learn about NFP is a strong indicator of this "cult of NFP" disposition. NFP should be there for hard cases only, when there are at least serious reasons to space children, and I am doubtful that many such cases exist in objective reality: that is, I think the set of real cases where the reasons are serious enough to use NFP on the one hand yet not serious enough to indicate complete abstinence on the other are probably very few, as a practical matter."
You begin with qualifications -"can...probably" - that there specifically "may be a cult of NFP" but then you write that there IS a strong indicator that such a cult exists in "the notion that every Catholic married couple should learn about NFP." I don't see how this follows. Obviously not every couple needs to practice NFP. But certainly that doesn't mean that they shouldn't learn about it, since 1) one cannot tell that they will never be in need of the technique and 2) not to mention the fact that learning about NFP is a good help in learning why contraception is wrong, and 3) it is valuable information to be able to share with others in a culture that practices artificial contraception to such a large extent, to share with people who may be in circumstances that warrant it but don't know about it.
Again you say that NFP "probably often is illicit," focusing especially on reason of circumstance. I may be overreading, but it sounds to me as if you are saying: "I think most uses of NFP by couples are licit." And that, I feel, again, is an unfair suggestion without facts to support it. To make that suggestion about one's fellow Catholics one needs more than doubts. That's the main reason I question the fruitfulness of such speculation in fact. Perhaps it reminded me too much of a suspicion I often see on St. Blogs ie that there are many annulments that are given out inappropriately - how do they know?
I also think the fact that the marital union is such a tremendous good (which I don't think you acknowledged in your post but I could be wrong) complicates your argument that if circumstances are serious enough to warrant NFP they probably warrant abstinence.
Again, I may be reading you a little oversensitively. Not that the discussion matters much to me personally though, as I'm 25 and single. lol
Oh, and as for the brain surgery quibble - what I meant by "good in itself" was that NFP is a good means in general, unlike artificial conception. As you so eloquently put it in your post, both contraception and NFP could be used for the same good end, but only one would be right because of the different nature of the acts. Obviously good means can be used for a bad end. I'm aware of the complexity here.
And just to finish on another medical note - you write: "Not everyone who has a brain and uses her brain needs to know how to do it, or what is involved in having it done, for example."
To which I respond: "Not everyone will fall ill with cancer - but that doesn't mean people shouldn't know about the warning signs." Again, I fail to see how the encouragment of knowledge indicates "a cult."
Increase in one's knowledge is a good, afterall.
I look forward to your response. Again, no disrespect is or was intended. :-)
Now do you mean permanent abstinence?
I would think that the abstinence would be as permanent or as temporary as the particular serious reasons for it.
Because the way NFP works is through temporary abstinence.
Not quite. Periodic abstinence, temporary abstinence, and permanent abstinence are all different things.
Say the wife has a life-threatening condition brought on by pregnancy: if she gets pregnant she will die, or go insane and drown the kids she already has, or whatever. Assume moral certainty about the condition and its gravity. That seems a serious enough reason to use NFP, but at the same time seems serious enough to make the use of NFP imprudent. Prudent abstinence in that case would be long-term, perhaps even past menopause; but not necessarily permanent. (I speak of these things as hypotheticals, but they aren't really hypotheticals. This is the actual factual circumstance for some people).
With periodic abstinence pregnancy is not categorically ruled out. With temporary abstinence pregnancy is definitely ruled out for as long as the abstinence is maintained. And at issue is whether as a practical matter there are many cases - or any at all - where the reasons are serious enough to justify attempting to prevent pregnancy without requiring one to do what is known to in fact prevent pregnancy. The assumption in the "NFP is good" crowd seems to be that a large set of actual cases fall within that domain. Personally I doubt it.
...and the fertility charting has helped them to conceive.
Yeah, that is why I qualified with understood as a natural method to limit or prevent pregnancies.
Ryan, let me be a bit more specific since your specific concerns deserve specific replies.
Many moons ago I was temporarily banned from commenting on another blog (I consider that blogger my friend now FWIW) because I objected to a book that had just been published by a friend of that blogger. In this book the author advocates that every teenager should learn not just that NFP exists but all about how it is specifically done, in preparation for marriage, because once married they would need to prayerfully decide when (not if) to use it. It was specifically suggested that teenage brothers should chart their teenage sisters' cycles to get familiar with the techniques involved, etc. This book and others like it are still around on the shelves in Catholic stores all across this great land.
This is not the only indication of a cult of NFP that I have noticed. I know specifically of people who have been pressured to use NFP when it would clearly be imprudent: where it would be more merciful to take the wife out and put a bullet in her head than to get her pregnant.
My own experiences with this topic may well affect my objectivity on the matter; probably do. But when you look for authoritative formal documents from the Magisterium you find nothing - not a word - that recommends NFP as a positive thing. There are a few places (e.g. Castii Connubi and Humanae Vitae IIRC) where its liciety for serious (or grave) reasons is contrasted with the intrinsic evil of abortion.
But "for a fat girl she doesn't sweat too much" coming from the Magisterium doesn't make NFP into the Prom Queen that she has been made into in certain circles, it seems to me.
Periodic abstinence, temporary abstinence, and permanent abstinence are all different things.
Well, from one perspective, yes. But I claim that from the point of view of a person living and working in the time-domain (as opposed to the Fourier-domain), periodic abstinence is only a series of temporary abstinences strung together.
I understand your point, and I certainly agree with the contra-cult-of-NFP sentiment that you have expressed. (And, for what it's worth, I'm not a huge fan of CCL, although we know tons of CCL Teaching Couples). But, in trying to pin down exactly what is the sinful action that a couple who is mutually choosing to abstain from sex in a particular part of the month, I've been coming up empty. Sex between married people is certainly not morally required. Certainly there can be a contraceptive mentality that is harmful to the couple and the relationship, but I can't quite put a finger on what that couple would confess, say, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation: "I didn't have sex with my wife during the time that we knew she was fertile"? I mean, sure, but I'm not completely sure that it makes sense.
I guess one of the underlying questions is: is it ever licit to choose when to have children? At some point there's a prudent judgment involved in the process, e.g. if you know that in about nine months you will be changing jobs and moving towns (which is not an unrealistic situation for the newly-married Catholic Graduate Student population that I know) would it really be prudent to have a newborn/extremely pregnant wife at the same time? There's also the element of child spacing; the benefits of extended breastfeeding (and most mothers' milk dries up during the second trimester of pregnancy) that might make it prudent not to be pregnant again with an under-one-year-old. (Yes, often a mother's fertility doesn't return that quickly, but it does for some).
...periodic abstinence is only a series of temporary abstinences strung together.
Let me try to be clearer about the distinction: a temporary abstinence lasts for as long as the reason for abstaining lasts, while a periodic abstinence does not.
...but I can't quite put a finger on what that couple would confess,...
How about "Bless me father, for I have sinned. I tracked my wife's fertility and intentionally timed relations to avoid pregnancy, without a serious reason."
Zippy,
I think I understand more where you're coming from, though the example you cite is very different from "all couples should know about NFP." As for me, in the secular enviroment where I live and work and in which I see plenty of ignorance about Catholicism, I wish some of my Catholic acquaintances knew more about NFP.
And the fat girl comment, though funny, is really not applicable here. If anything NFP is a Plain Jane.
Seriously though, perhaps we should consider that some of the "oddness" of some presentations of NFP has to do with the trememendous contraceptive mentality we are working against in the modern world, and the suspicions and misunderstandings surrounding NFP ("just another stab at the rhythm method").
Anyway, one other thing to note is that, as fertility is a blessing from God, knowing how it works - just like knowing how anything created by God works - is good in a substantial way. To me any increase in knowledge of ones existence as a created being is worthy of encouragment, I mean when one is mature and in the position to put that part of ones existence into practice.
If anything NFP is a Plain Jane.
I suppose it depends on the eye of the beholder. To a non-Catholic secular person, sure. But the place it holds in a lot of Catholic thought seems inappropriate given that all the Magisterium has said is that it can be licit when there are grave (or serious, depending on the document referenced) reasons. "It might be licit to do this in a grave situation" isn't the ringing Magisterial endorsement that I think would be necessary to justify the way it is treated in much of the lay-produced literature.
How about "Bless me father, for I have sinned. I tracked my wife's fertility and intentionally timed relations to avoid pregnancy, without a serious reason."
Good point. Try to remember that you aren't debating with Tom or Steven or Mark here, just lil' ol' me. I guess what I was looking for was the fat line between Tom's red and green sets, and the point is that there isn't one here either. Point taken.
What about my prudence question, though? (And I will have you know that that song was going through my head the better part of yesterday afternoon. I even played the White Album all the way through to try to get it out, and it didn't work).
Brandon: you guys can't fool me with your self-deprecating remarks.
What about my prudence question, though?
I think there are certainly times when it is prudent not to get pregnant, and I think the threshold for making that choice in itself is pretty low. As you say, there is no positive obligation for married couples to be constantly going at it like rabbits. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
The more interesting question is how often is it simultaneously (1) seriously imprudent to get pregnant and (2) seriously imprudent to refrain from sex. Unless one views onesself and/or ones spouse as a kind of animal that simply can't do without nookie, it seems to me that the intersection set here must be pretty small.
I even played the White Album all the way through to try to get it out, and it didn't work.
Uh oh, you are on to me. But at least my master plan worked before you caught on.
I think part of the problem is that there is great confusion about intent. Particularly, there seems to be the belief that intent cannot be discerned by a 3rd party. There also seems to be the belief that to understand someone's intent, you need to be able to get inside their brain. Often when people claim to discerning intent, I believe they are actually trying to determine culpability.
You add to this HV's stating that a couple using NFP can intend not to have a fruitful sex act and it can still be licit. With NFP, you have the question of dual intention. You can intend to preserve the life of the mother by not having relations during fertile times. I agree with Zippy that the prudence of this licit choice is highly questionable. I fail to see how one can licitly intend to have a fruitless marriage. My reading of HV suggests that such an intention is the same one as a barrier, differing only in the object of the respective acts.
I'm not saying though that one needs to be inside someone's brain. I'm saying that with NFP, to know if there are serious reasons to space out children, one would have to be inside the marriage. I don't see then, how anyone could say there are many illicit uses of NFP out there. There may be, there may not be.
And "intending to have a fruitless marriage" is an extreme use of NFP, one I've never seen in the few Catholic families I know who practice NFP.
Again, I think the level of excitement over NFP in some Catholic quarters compared to official magisterial announcements needs to be seen in the context of our tremendously contraceptive culture, the doubts of many Catholics, and the marginalization of Church teaching on this matter. The rhetoric may be too effusive, but these are heady times.
The more interesting question is how often is it simultaneously (1) seriously imprudent to get pregnant and (2) seriously imprudent to refrain from sex.
Hmm... This construction casts the whole thread in a different light that I need to think on a bit more. But that was at the heart of my objections: even without NFP it's pretty obvious when "nookie" will most probably result in a new little guy toddling around (or in the case of my 7.5 week old: being carried around), and some of the members of the cult of "don't bother learning NFP" make it sound as though "nookie" were required at those times.
More thought still required.
you guys can't fool me with your self-deprecating remarks.
Currently, I don't have time to read many weblogs (this may go relate to the 7.5 week old, or his two older brothers, but it also has to do with being assigned another undergraduate lecture this semester and trying to finish a degree so I can get a real job of my own), but I have several of you guys RSSed into my email client, because I have learned so much from reading and participating in the various debates. Certainly it has gone a long way towards developing my humility.
...some of the members of the cult of "don't bother learning NFP" make it sound as though "nookie" were required at those times.
That would be every bit as ludicrous a claim, it seems to me. Nookie isn't required, it just rocks.
I do think that there can sometimes be a moral danger involved in learning too much though. Especially, on this issue, for people who are not yet married or who are recently married and have no particular grave or at least serious need to know. And not just on this issue, in general: someone who doesn't know how to skim a little from the bank isn't tempted to do it; and if you aren't in charge of bank security then why do you need to know?
In general, knowledge is not the value-neutral think it is portrayed to be, because we are not fully developed saints resting in the eternal light of the Beatific Vision.
Nookie isn't required, it just rocks.
I do think that there can sometimes be a moral danger involved in learning too much though.
Agreed, on both counts.
I don't see then, how anyone could say there are many illicit uses of NFP out there. There may be, there may not be.
It can't be directly observed, but if the general tenor of the literature on the topic is an indication of how people are understanding and applying NFP then it seems to me to be a straightforward conclusion. It isn't a conclusion about any particular case, of course, but then it doesn't pretend to be a conclusion about any particular case.
I think you raise a good point about the sociological drivers behind this. That is, I don't impute any ill intentions to the authors of these books. They are just trying to present a Catholic understanding that people immersed in the contracepted Oprahriffic culture will "get". But in their zeal to do so I think they may be misrepresenting the true moral landscape of NFP and representing Catholicism as something it isn't. Catholicism isn't an alternative lifestyle, it is the Cross.
ryan c,
I wasn't targeting you. I had an NFP debate about a week or so ago. People were maintaining that NFP could not be used for evil. Intent keeps coming up in various areas, and that seems to be the most pernicious error. I was attempting to bring further clarity to where the error was.
Zippy,
How much would it cost to buy your pithiness? This was simply beautiful:
How about "Bless me father, for I have sinned. I tracked my wife's fertility and intentionally timed relations to avoid pregnancy, without a serious reason."
Zippy,
Thank you much for this very clear exposition.
While not disagreeing in substance, I will make a quibble that may not have merit.
Because the marital act has two "ends" unitive and procreative, I can see circumstances under which for good cause people may need to limit the size of the family but permanent abstinence is not reasonable because it also obstructs the other "good" end.
But this is pure speculation, and not really something I care for. More importantly, is your main point that NFP is not a positive good in and of itself and that may be illicitly used (I only want two children because that's what's statistical normal) as often as licitly.
The reality is in part behind the actions. Is NFP simply replacing other means of birth control in the contraceptive mentality--is the object still to impose human regulation on God's will? It is in this way that there can be no real moral difference between condoms and NFP--the means are different, but the intent remains.
shalom,
Steven
People were maintaining that NFP could not be used for evil. Intent keeps coming up in various areas, and that seems to be the most pernicious error.
I agree, this attitude seems pervasive. There seems to be this notion out there that there are intrinsically good acts, in the sense that once a certain act has been identified in its species as an intrinsically good act, additional intentions or circumstances can't make it into a bad act.
Probably the people who approach morality this way don't think of it that way explicitly, but you see it everywhere: once it has been established that attacking Iraq can be justified (say because Hussein oppresses his people), it doesn't matter why we actually are doing it (to get the nonexistent WMD's). Once it has been established that (unlike contraception) NFP can be justified, it doesn't matter why it is specifically being used.
Certainly not everyone thinks this way, and I doubt that anyone consistently and explicitly thinks this way, but I think you've identifed a particular and very common species of error.
Dear Zippy,
Having made it through all of the comments now, I retract my quibble, seeing what you are getting at. There can be instances in which pregnancy may be the equivalent of a death sentence; and if that is truly understood by both parties then temporary abstinence as you define it is actually the stronger unitive action than is the conjugal act because you are united in charity and concern.
Thank you again.
shalom,
Steven
even without NFP it's pretty obvious when "nookie" will most probably result in a new little guy toddling around
For surprisingly many people it isn't obvious at all. And oftentimes someone holding the position that "everybody should learn NFP" is actually only trying to say that if you are going to marry and have sex, then it should be obvious to you.
One more thing: to use NFP efficiently (whether in order to avoid or to achieve pregnancy) a woman (or a couple) needs some practice with interpretation. Whether relying on NFP in a particular case is prudent depends also on how well a particular couple knows the method; and this in turn depends on whether they were practicing fertility charting before they even needed it. If learning NFP is to be discouraged, this alone will make the narrow zone between "imprudent to get pregnant" and "imprudent to avoid sex" even narrower.
If learning NFP is to be discouraged, this alone will make the narrow zone between "imprudent to get pregnant" and "imprudent to avoid sex" even narrower.
Interesting point, but only kind of true. The couple could of course abstain while learning NFP, so this narrowing would only occur in cases where avoiding nookie for a few months would be seriously imprudent. I rather doubt that that category of situation even exists.
Indeed, I think that not knowing NFP ahead of time would encourage a couple to be serious about the decision to use it, because a decision to use it wouldn't mean abstaining until next monday it would mean abstaining until the techniques are learned and mastered. So you've given me another reason to approve of intentionally remaining ignorant.
If we're going to talk about knowing about NFP I think we're going to have define what level of knowledge we're talking about.
When Zippy says "I do think that there can sometimes be a moral danger involved in learning too much though. Especially, on this issue, for people who are not yet married or who are recently married and have no particular grave or at least serious need to know" I'm unsure of just what too far is. For instance, I think it is perfectly reasonable for any young couple going through pre-marital preperation to learn about NFP. Not learn in the sense of let's whip out the charts and such, but know what it is in general. NFP is not just for spacing children afterall, it's also for making conception easier. Not to mention the fact that (as far as I've been told) the couple learns something valuable that the female has intuited about her own status as possible giver of life.
Which leads me to the point that the knowledge of NFP is more good than ill. The uses of it are the real issue. Not everyone who learns about NFP is going to use it in a bad way - in fact I would say the odds of that are low considering the fact that if the couple is willing to follow the Church on conception (again keeping in mind the cultural context), they'll more than likely be prayerful and mature enough to make the right decision concerning the proper use of NFP in their marriage.
I must admit by the way, to not being familiar with the kind of wacky NFP literature Zippy has refered to. What I am familiar with, though, is the Catholics I know who contracept or don't have an issue with contraception, who are ignorant about NFP, as well as Catholics who use NFP, the priests with whom I've talked about these types of issues, and the people who have sometimes spoken at our Church about NFP. Frankly, I don't think the literature as indicator is as important as the overall sociological situation these American Catholics are in, their lived experience and level of knowledge. And from what I've seen and heard, I just don't have much anxiety over couple's use of NFP. But as I've said, I am a young turk, and unmarried, so my perspective on these issues may be skewed.
If we're going to talk about knowing about NFP I think we're going to have define what level of knowledge we're talking about.
Good clarification. What I mean is "trained in how to do it", as opposed to "aware of its existence".
Not to quibble, but there is a middle ground between "aware of its existence" and "trained how to do it."
Sure. There is a middle ground between being aware of the existence of brain surgery and knowing how to do it too. The most critical difference from my POV is in the expectations one has w.r.t. his knowledge: if one expects and hopes not to ever have to personally use it, and won't use it unless something extraordinarily unfortunate occurs, that would be OK (though still potentially risky for reasons previously discussed).
The way it is treated in the literature is as something that every couple needs to prayerfully consider. Every couple doesn't need to prayerfully consider whether or not they are going to have brain surgery: it is an extraordinary technique for extraordinary situations. At best that is what can be said of NFP; except that the necessity driving the use of NFP is far lesser in magnitude than the necessity driving the use of brain surgery. NFP is never a life-saving necessity, and temporary abstinence (as opposed to periodic abstinence) is always an available and more effective option.
NFP should not be an ordinary feature of Christian marriage. At most - and it isn't clear to me that even this is justified - it should be one of those rare things that is used only in extreme and unexpected circumstances. And by the way, "it is expensive and difficult to raise this many kids" does not constitute an extreme and unexpected circumstance. "We fell on some economic hard times" does not constitute an extreme or unexpected circumstance. For that kind of circumstance, NFP is definitely not morally warranted IMO: only what I have termed temporary abstinence, as opposed to periodic abstinence, is warranted.
Zippy writes: (1) "NFP should not be an ordinary feature of Christian marriage."
I could agree with this statement, but I think it is a weak form of another statement: (2) Contraception should not be an ordinary feature of a Christian marriage. An alternate weak form of statement 2 would be: (3) Artificial contraception should not be an ordinary feature of a Christian marriage. There are some people who think (3) is the same thing as (2); these are the people who think they know the definition of bonspeil but don't, and also the people who write the literature to which you refer.
Since there are a lot of modern Catholics who disagree with statement (3), there are pastoral concerns to address, as Ryan pointed out. It seems to me (and I have some second-hand information with regard to the utility of this approach, but no real first-hand experience) that for people who disagree with statement (3), it would be easier to get them to agree to (3) first and then to (2) second. I don't personally know any people who are using NFP to avoid children alltogether, although I do know some people who use it to postpone children, either their first or subsequent. But marketing NFP as a "Catholic form of birth control" as an alternate to condoms or worse, the pill (which contains an abortificant in addition to being a contraceptive) and then letting the Holy Spirit do the bait-and-switch with the couple seems to be a reasonable pastoral solution. Sub-optimal, agreed, but the modern culture against children is quite strong, even among some people we know that have children.
...and then letting the Holy Spirit do the bait-and-switch with the couple seems to be a reasonable pastoral solution.
I suppose the reasonableness of the proposal would depend upon the Holy Spirit's willingness to participate in a bait-and-switch.
Zippy, one of the other problems that I have with your commentary on this matter is that you exclude the use of NFP to conceive a child from your analysis. That is, NFP could be an "ordinary feature" of a marriage, in that the couple uses it to help achieve conception as well as to space children should a a serious situation arise. When I have heard about NFP on the web, on TV (ie EWTN), or on the internet, the use of NFP to conceive is often underlined. I think when we discuss NFP as Catholics we need to represent the practice in its totality (that is, in all its functions and benefits).
I don't think everyone needs to know how to use NFP to conceive a child either. I agree that the threshold is less grave in that case than it is for using NFP to prevent pregnancy (or euphemistically "delay" pregnancy - that is, prevent it until we decide to stop preventing it), but both uses are only for extraordinary circumstances: for when something happens that was not expected to happen and shouldn't have been expected to happen; or for when something doesn't happen and it should have been expected to happen.
If a couple has tried for a few years and not conceived then extraordinary measures may be warranted, and NFP is a potentially licit alternative to IVF, as long as it is used correctly. But the notion that people just can't manage to have any kids without knowing how to do NFP is just silly. NFP is an extraordinary technique for extraordinary circumstances; it is not the "everyone should know how to do it preemptively, teenagers should track each others' temperatures, knowing how to do it is a necessary part of Christian marriage" thing that it is presented to be. I think there is a moral danger of seeing NFP as "Christian IVF", and of viewing children as accessories to be produced on demand when they are wanted. NFP is an extraordinary technique for extraordinary - and only extraordinary - circumstances. At most. It is entirely possible that NFP is completely dispensible.
And importantly, there are a lot of circumstances that do not qualify as extraordinary. Being married for six months without achieving pregnancy is not an extraordinary circumstance. Falling on economic hard times is not an extraordinary circumstance. Circumstances that we choose for ourselves - like going to school to get a degree - are not extraordinary. Circumstances that should be a part of our ordinary expectations (and every marriage goes through economically difficult times as well as economically easier times) do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. All of these things are part of the ordinary course of any marriage. The moral threshold for choosing not to engage in relations for a time at all is very low, of course, and people always have that option. Even if the reason is "we want to travel around the world in six months without getting pregnant, and we've made these expensive resvervations", it would be fine to just abstain.
The use of NFP is only warranted (and then only maybe) - again in my opinion, but I think I have its tepid endorsement by the Magisterium on my side in this argument, against the parade of NFP-for-everyone lay literature - when something extraordinary and unexpected occurs. Think "car accident", not "I decided to get a degree so the family would be better off".
I'm late to the party here, so forgive me some belated observations:
One thing that hasn't been addressed (though Zippy alludes to it) is: just what is wrong with temporary abstinence? That's it's too hard? Jeepers. Aren't we Catholics who worship the crucified one?
Temporary abstinence is hard. But it's a sacrifice, and grace comes with it. It is possible to grow closer and fall deeper in love with your spouse during periods of abstinence. Sure, bonding is one of the purposes of sex, but sex itself isn't the Sacrament, the whole of married life is. It's through the whole of married life, including and especially through the sacrifices spouses make for each other and for the family - such as avoiding the marital act when it isn't prudent - that God provides grace.
The assertion implicit in NFP evangelization (their word, not mine) is that this is all just too durn hard. It may in fact be too hard for some couples, so we can say that NFP is a manifestation of God's mercy for them. But should it be the default option? The first choice?
Ryan says:
Seriously though, perhaps we should consider that some of the "oddness" of some presentations of NFP has to do with the tremendous contraceptive mentality we are working against in the modern world, and the suspicions and misunderstandings surrounding NFP ("just another stab at the rhythm method").
I do agree with that, and I see that NFP certainly can be a first step away from contraception for some couples. I don't fault the CCL folks too much because they are trying to fight a good fight that needs to be fought. But there are problems with their approach and with their evangelization.
My interpretation of when it's OK to use NFP is pretty much Zippy's, and it's disconcerting to see that morph into "NFP is the best way to effectively cooperate with God's plan" (see author of the book Zippy mentioned above). That notion is wrong and offensive.
Those are my dimestore philosophical and theological objections to NFP. Practically speaking, it seems to be an offense against spontaneity and joy. Some things simply don't need to be scientized.
Also, ever since our marriage prep NFP couple told us that "finishing your PhD" is a serious enough reason to use it, and the priest followed with, "There's nothing wrong with wanting to control birth, it's just the method that matters," I've refused to disbelieve that NFP is easily abused.
Hi Papa-Lu,
It's funny, I was thinking about Mama-Lu's Inflamatory Anti-NFP Rant post earlier in this thread, it's great to see you show up in this conversation.
I'm pretty sure (in fact, I'm living proof) that finishing a PhD is not really a good reason to delay starting a family. You and several other couples that came after us had the disadvantage of having younger NFP-teaching couples; that I would probably disagree with as well. (We were taught by Dave and Sandy, and I don't remember them saying anything of the sort).
Some things simply don't need to be scientized.
I still say that it's pretty obvious without a thermometer or anything else. So, where is the line between prudent abstinence of one particular night (but not every other night until you finish your degree) and a contraceptive mentality?
"There's nothing wrong with wanting to control birth, it's just the method that matters,"
And this is an example of the people who think my statement (3) is identical to my statement (2), and I disagree with that mentality.
using NFP to prevent pregnancy (or euphemistically "delay" pregnancy - that is, prevent it until we decide to stop preventing it)
And this is the same as my objection to the distinction between "periodic" and "temporary", except in reverse.
Sorry for the choppiness of my posts... to paraphrase Pascal, or someone like that, I didn't have the time to make them into one cohesive thought.
"There's nothing wrong with wanting to control birth, it's just the method that matters."
What a wonderfully concise statement of the applied fallacy M.Z. Forrest pointed out eariler in the thread: of the notion that NFP is an intrinsically good method which cannot be made evil through a wrong intention.
Dear Zippy,
Came back to this late so probably too late to be meaningful; however, in response to Mr. Ryan, I would say that there is nothing in NFP qua NFP that is more likely to foster pregnancy than would frequent recourse to that activity which engenders said end is likely to do. NFP can, in isolated circumstances help isolate a problem, but I think most couples will not need recourse to NFP in order to achieve the end they seek.
I know from experience that it didn't help at all in our case, and, in fact, tended toward turning the whole endeavor into a rather tedious experiment in graphing and charting.
shalom,
Steven
Are both uses limited to extraordinary circumstances? As far as I'm aware, the Magisterium only speaks to using NFP to delay conception (I disagree that this is a euphemism), not to try to achive conception. A post of the relevant passage would be helpful.
"Temporary abstinence is hard. But it's a sacrifice, and grace comes with it. It is possible to grow closer and fall deeper in love with your spouse during periods of abstinence. Sure, bonding is one of the purposes of sex, but sex itself isn't the Sacrament, the whole of married life is. It's through the whole of married life, including and especially through the sacrifices spouses make for each other and for the family - such as avoiding the marital act when it isn't prudent - that God provides grace."
I agree with this, though I would say the word "bonding" doesn't quite capture the full physical/emotional/spiritual aspect of the act for me (keep in mind I'm unmarried lol!). It makes it sound like the sexual union is roughly similar to other bonding activities. But as Church teaching on contraception on the one hand, and artificial insemination/in vitro insemination on the other testify, sex is its own category when it comes to achieving its own particular union of the spouses. Something so wonderful and gracefilled happens in sex that makes a deviation from God's plan regarding it one way or another very grave matter indeed. It's not the Sacrament, but it is essentially a powerful mystery, as I also think any glance at history or literature will show.
Thank you all for a vigorous and charitable discussion, I think I'm going to step out as I have a busy week ahead of me.
Oh, one last note. I think we are all in agreement with the basic principles involved here (e.g. that NFP can be misused). I think where we differ centers around emphases and where we lay them, which suggests that the disagreement is more about individual experiences and perhaps also personality/perspective.
Are both uses limited to extraordinary circumstances?
The actual (English translation of the) language of the Magisterium is the words grave and serious. These are the same terms the Magisterium uses when she affirms that artificial contraception is immoral even if there are grave and serious reasons. So it seems to me that it is most reasonable to interpret those words as referring to the kind of "hard cases" which were set against the prohibition of artificial contraception as intrinsically evil.
Without further clarification from the Magisterium it is of course a judgement call as to what constitutes grave and serious reasons. The notion that if a reason is grave it will in general (though perhaps not in every conceivable case) be unplanned and out of the ordinary is my own interpretation, resting on the corresponding use of those terms in the condemnation of contraception. (That doesn't mean I think my interpretation is wrong, mind you, but I wouldn't want to represent my words as the words of the Magisterium).
Steven: indeed, it seems to me that with Herculean effort it may be possible for the truly dedicated couple to insure that all possible mornings and afternoons are adequately covered with conception opportunities, as an opportunistic matter. In any event that sort of challenge sounds more appealing to me - perhaps it is a personal quirk - than making charts and taking temperatures.
Sorry Ryan, I think I misinterpreted your question. I guess the question is, would it be immoral to do temperature taking and charting in the ordinary course - that is, without the presence of extraordinary circumstances - in order to try to conceive. It isn't obvious to me that it would be. But I am not sure why, in ordinary circumstances, anyone would want to, pace my reply to Steven. (And on a slightly more serious note, if it isn't necessary to go into all that when trying to conceive then a blissful ignorance will reign when hard times do fall and the inclination is to not conceive; because hard times will fall. They always do.)
Hi Zippy,
I was thinking that there might be circumstances where the couple would want to achieve conception as soon as possible, instead of leaving things to chance, and I was wondering how extraordinary those would have to be to warrant bringing conception on sooner like that. I think you answered the question though.
My suggestion to that couple would be that (and I am really being self-indulgent in commenting again since I know you already got it) instead of spending time on taking temperatures and charts, which would have to be done for a few months before it would yield useful data anyway, spend time on other activities more likely to produce a prompt result. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think newlyweds showing a preference for the former over the latter probably is indicative of some kind of problem.
Last night, about half past nine, upon going to the bathroom, I noticed increased amount of cervical mucus. "Am I in fertile period?" I wondered, so I reached to feel the cervix. Yes, it was slightly open!
I was not precisely in mood for sex (I am not one of those women with increased sexual drive during fertile period), but it would surely be nice to have a baby. So I approached my husband (who was busy with the computer at the time) to ask if he could come to bed early since I would like he-knows-what.
Does the above story make me an NFP misuser in Zippy's understanding?
Does the above story make me an NFP misuser in Zippy's understanding?
Nope.
No one has mentioned a practical consideration that arises in my experience. I am married Catholic with one young child. My spouse and I learned NFP while engaged and I can agree that often it can be undertaken in a contraceptive mindset. My comment is: it sometimes (often?) occurs that the wife feels "in the mood" during the fertile times only. This causes a burden in the couple's mind: Do we or don't we? if they want to take advantage of the wife's desire yet want to space their children out a little. CCLI for example will tell you that breastfeeding your child will give you infertility for an extended period, which sometimes doesn't turn out to be true. In this case the couple is faced with a choice to "risk" pregnancy by making love when the wife is interested, or constrain their relations to outside the fertile period when her desires can be more for sleep than anything else, especially when she cares for children the couple already has! Perhaps this is not getting to the point, but we have struggled against sometimes resenting God for creating the female body and mind with this connection. "Does the clay say to the potter, why did you make me this way?" (Isaiah). Resentment of God is something one should confess during Reconciliation.
In this case was it wrong to learn NFP since it now creates a burden on our consciences? Or is it supposed to create this burden? Should my spouse and I just grow up?
This is why it is called the 'marital burden' in quite a few papal documents. ;-)
What Zippy has told you is correct. Abstinance is a beautiful thing. If you don't want another child at this point, abstain.
Not to get personal here, but I am speaking from experience. It can be done.
In this case was it wrong to learn NFP since it now creates a burden on our consciences?
I don't know that it was wrong to learn it, but it sounds like it wasn't necessary to learn it and learning it has created unnecessary additional emotional and moral burdens. Engaged and married couples should know this: that learning this thing, if it isn't necessary to learn it, can make you less happy and more burdened than you could have otherwise been. It is better - in the sense that you will be happier and less burdened - to not learn it, unless you have a compelling reason to learn it.
The distinction between pursuit of knowledge for love of the Creator who made all things that there are to know, versus pursuit of knowledge to emancipate ourselves from Him, goes all the way back to the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden. I think anyone who is honest with himself (at least anyone as old and tired as me) can think of things he would like to unlearn. Knowledge - at least the finite sort we have as human beings - is not morally neutral. It isn't just that there are some mysteries which cannot be banished (though there are): there are some mysteries which, as particular people situated in particular historical contexts, we would be better off not banishing.
I've elevated Anon's point and my gloss on it to its own post.
Post a Comment