Replies

Thank you for your well reasoned and polite responses to my many questions. Please know that I'm not trying to badger you. As I'm sure you're well aware, the Church's position on sex seems very strange to a lot of us non-Catholics, and I really find it interesting to try and understand exactly where you guys are coming from.

Your point on intent is well taken. But I'm still not quite sure why NFP gets a free pass, so to speak. I hope I'm not pushing your patience past the breaking point, but I wonder if you might clarify it for me.

Maybe an example would illustrate my confusion. Suppose a couple has some valid reason to avoid conception for a few months. Obviously, they could simply choose not to have sex for the entire time and avoid any moral problems. But the couple doesn't like the idea of having to go without sex for so long.

So the couple considers two other options that will let them have sex without having to worry about conceiving a child. One is to monitor the wife's cycle and plan their encounters for her infertile periods, when conception is very unlikely to happen. The other is to use some form of contraception (just for a few months), which also makes it unlikely that conception will result from any of their encounters. The couple acknowledges that a child may still be conceived under either option, and are ready and willing to accept any children conceived during the use of NFP or contraception.

It seems that under both options, the parents are trying to enjoy the fun of sex while actively reducing the chances of conception for a period of time. With NFP the couple is not actively *blocking* conception. But even though the means differ, the *intent* is the same. Under both scenarios, the couple wants to have their cake and eat it too.

So why is the NFP option ok? (Again, assuming that it is just used for a few months and there's a valid reason to avoid pregancy.)

You make some excellent points. At first blush I can’t really see any flaws in your argument. Let me cogitate on it and get back to you tomorrow.

For what it’s worth, I was away from the Church a long time. And its position on sex was completely baffling to me then and (to some extent) can be perplexing even now. But the more I study it, the more rational I find it, and I find that it is always me who is looking at things the wrong way.

So I can completely relate to where you are on this, and I think you have exactly the right attitude. Skeptical, but curious and intrigued all the same. :)

With NFP the couple is not actively *blocking* conception. But even though the means differ, the *intent* is the same. Under both scenarios, the couple wants to have their cake and eat it too. So why is the NFP option ok? (Again, assuming that it is just used for a few months and there's a valid reason to avoid pregancy.)

First of all, NFP is only supposed to be used under serious circumstances. Even so, couples practicing NFP are supposed to remain open to the possibility of children and recognize that children are gifts from God and not ever "mistakes". Once you accept this teaching, the idea that you would ever use an artificial method to attempt to impose your will upon God becomes anathema.

So the mindset behind NFP is the polar opposite of the mindset behind artificial birth control which has as its goal the 100% blocking of fertility. In this case of NFP, the practice of it also helps the couple understand the theology behind it. Indeed, many couples who start out using NFP end up with large families specifically because it draws the couple closer together and helps them understand the tremendous gift they've been given. Oh, and once you understand how it works, the method is just as good at making babies as spacing them. :-)

I'm enjoying the discussion too, and thanks for your patience! After pondering it I think I got it at least somewhat sorted out.

There is no indication from Scripture or from Jewish tradition that sex during naturally infertile periods was wrong. Leviticus outlines a woman's times of niddah, during which there can't be relations. But I find it interesting that these times do not include pregnancy or menopause: two times when women are totally and knowingly infertile. If God had wanted to put a stricture on having sex during infertile periods, He could have easily done it here.

And yet He didn't. Pregnant and post-menopausal women were still having relations and they, unlike Onan, were not struck down. Women who were thought to be barren were having relations as well. So there seems to be a distinction being made here.

I'm not exactly sure how intent plays into this--one can't say that those Jewish women were avoiding conception; they really didn't have a choice in the matter. But they did know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were currently infertile. And despite that knowledge, they had relations and there was no moral problem with that.

This may well be why the Church can separate these two methods out. Having relations during a woman's natural cycles of infertility per se does not seem to raise moral issues (unless, perhaps, there's a defective intent there?). But making use of artificial means to block fertility (as in the case of Onan) is a grave sin.

It makes sense to me anyway! :)