A three-part question about NFP

[QuasiCatholic]

I have a three-part question about NFP / contraception that I would like your thoughts on:

1. It strikes me that NFP is inherently biased against women. To wit, women are most likely to want/enjoy sex at exactly the time of the month when NFP requires them to abstain, while men don’t have that same cyclical sex drive issue. Also, in humane vitae (sp?) the pope said he was worried that the use of contraception would cause men to see their partners as just objects of gratification – completely ignoring the fact that women might be happy to get a little gratification too.
2. In its own way, NFP seems just as contrary to “natural law” as contraceptive methods. If sex is inherently tied to procreation, then why are humans one of the few species that are sexually attracted/active throughout the cycle and not just during the fertile period? We are designed to have sex whether we’re fertile or not – so how can we say that procreation is an inherent part of the act?
3. I can understand banning hormonal contraceptives, as they are a) highly effective and b) bad for the embryo in those rare instances where they aren’t effective. But how can we say that condoms prevent contraception? With standard (not perfect) use, they have a fail rate of like 20 pregnancies per 100 women. I’m pretty sure God could beat those odds if he really wanted to bring new life into the world. Are other actions that lower your chances of pregnancy but don’t actually prevent it (like…frequent hot tub use, lets say) also sinful?

Thoughts?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

1. It strikes me that NFP is inherently biased against women. To wit, women are most likely to want/enjoy sex at exactly the time of the month when NFP requires them to abstain, while men don’t have that same cyclical sex drive issue. Also, in humane vitae (sp?) the pope said he was worried that the use of contraception would cause men to see their partners as just objects of gratification – completely ignoring the fact that women might be happy to get a little gratification too.

Well, then, the woman would be using the man as an object of gratification.

This is not God’s idea of sex. God wants the husband to seek the pleasure of the wife, and the wife to seek the pleasure of the husband - not for either one to be self-seeking. I should never make love to my wife because I want to feel good; it should be out of my desire that we be intimate and that she feel good.

As for the objection about abstaining at peak, first of all, NFP doesn’t require anyone to abstain, ever. It just tells you that this time is a time where sex would likely lead to conception. The fact that couples want to avoid at peak can make it hard for many couples, and it can be especially hard on wives. But it is not NFP that causes this; it is the couple’s choice. (If these choices are not mutual, this can create serious problem – but of course, all marriages need unity among spouses).

What is the alternative to NFP? Birth control. Under most birth control, a woman NEVER feels the natural friskiness that comes over her at the peak of her cycle. How is this better?

1. In its own way, NFP seems just as contrary to “natural law” as contraceptive methods. If sex is inherently tied to procreation, then why are humans one of the few species that are sexually attracted/active throughout the cycle and not just during the fertile period? We are designed to have sex whether we’re fertile or not – so how can we say that procreation is an inherent part of the act?

I’m puzzled. This seems to be an argument that, if a person desires some thing naturally, then it is OK for them to pursue that thing. But men naturally desire to have sex with many different women, and you wouldn’t admit that to be OK, right? So whatever natural law is, it is not simply the claim that natural desires are fine to act on.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here?

1. I can understand banning hormonal contraceptives, as they are a) highly effective and b) bad for the embryo in those rare instances where they aren’t effective. But how can we say that condoms prevent contraception? With standard (not perfect) use, they have a fail rate of like 20 pregnancies per 100 women. I’m pretty sure God could beat those odds if he really wanted to bring new life into the world. Are other actions that lower your chances of pregnancy but don’t actually prevent it (like…frequent hot tub use, lets say) also sinful?

God doesn’t work like that. When I shoot a gun at someone, God doesn’t decide that He really likes that person, and cause my gun to misfire. God respects our choices – if we choose to avoid life, He will respect that choice. If we choose to avoid life in an 80% sure way, He will make it so that we don’t conceive 80% of the time.

 

[1ke]

It strikes me that NFP is inherently biased against women.

NFP is simply information. It can be used to help achieve a pregnancy or avoid a pregnancy.

We are not required to use it and not required to abstain. If we have a reason to avoid pregnancy, NFP simply tells us when we should do so if we choose to.

It is not “biased” against women. It is simply information, factual information about the woman-- it is her nature to be fertile at time and infertile at times. That is simply a fact.

Decisions couples make with that information are their own.

To wit, women are most likely to want/enjoy sex at exactly the time of the month when NFP requires them to abstain, while men don’t have that same cyclical sex drive issue.

NFP does not require anyone to abstain. As stated, it is merely information. The couple abstain by an act of their will.

Also, in humane vitae (sp?) the pope said he was worried that the use of contraception would cause men to see their partners as just objects of gratification – completely ignoring the fact that women might be happy to get a little gratification too.

I am not sure you are understanding what the Pope is actually saying.

1. In its own way, NFP seems just as contrary to “natural law” as contraceptive methods.

It is in no way contrary to natural law. Again, it is information about the woman’s natural cycle.

We are designed to have sex whether we’re fertile or not – so how can we say that procreation is an inherent part of the act?

Because we can look at the sex organs and know what they are for. The sex organs are for procreation. In humans they are for BOTH procreation and unity of the spouses because we have a spiritual soul with intellect and will.

But how can we say that condoms prevent contraception? With standard (not perfect) use, they have a fail rate of like 20 pregnancies per 100 women. I’m pretty sure God could beat those odds if he really wanted to bring new life into the world

Hmmm, you seem to think the wrongness of contraception is somehow tied to “effectiveness”. Which it isn’t.

Are other actions that lower your chances of pregnancy but don’t actually prevent it (like…frequent hot tub use, lets say) also sinful?

This is a logical fallacy.

It makes no sense.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

It is tied to effectiveness – let me explain. I have read on several NFP websites that avoiding pregnancy is not sinful. Instead, they say, creating a barrier during the sex act to prevent pregnancy is sinful. But if your “barrier” isn’t 100% effective then you aren’t actually PREVENTING anything, are you? Just as with using hot tubs or wearing briefs, etc. you’re lowering the likelihood, not making it impossible

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is tied to effectiveness – let me explain. I have read on several NFP websites that avoiding pregnancy is not sinful. Instead, they say, creating a barrier during the sex act to prevent pregnancy is sinful. But if your “barrier” isn’t 100% effective then you aren’t actually PREVENTING anything, are you? Just as with using hot tubs or wearing briefs, etc. you’re lowering the likelihood, not making it impossible

It’s about the intention. If a man wears briefs and rides a bicycle so that his wife doesn’t get pregnant – if that is his intention – then I think it would be wrong, on Catholic teaching. But these things are not intrinsically wrong, because there are valid reasons to do these things that have nothing to do with contraception. I cannot imagine a valid reason to wear a condom that has nothing to do with contraception. Or rather I can – to avoid STDs – but this purpose will be served much better by not having promiscuous sex.

 

[Em_in_FL]

It is tied to effectiveness – let me explain. I have read on several NFP websites that avoiding pregnancy is not sinful. Instead, they say, creating a barrier during the sex act to prevent pregnancy is sinful. But if your “barrier” isn’t 100% effective then you aren’t actually PREVENTING anything, are you? Just as with using hot tubs or wearing briefs, etc. you’re lowering the likelihood, not making it impossible

Effectiveness doesn’t matter in the least.

The point is that contraception tears apart the conjoined 2 aspects of marital sexuality - unitive and procreative…

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Or put another way, contraceptive methods that don’t work aren’t really contraception.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I think many look at this from the wrong perspective.

It’s not at all about whether or not you have children!
It’s ALL about the fact that the ACT of sex is designed by God as the means for the creation of a new SOUL - something that is precious to God. Therefore, the ACT becomes SACRED.

So the act is sacred - it should not be altered.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Or put another way, contraceptive methods that don’t work aren’t really contraception.

Did you understand the point I was making about intention? This is not about effectiveness. Look, if I thought that eating honey would cause my wife to not become pregnant, and I at honey wanting to avoid pregnancy, this would be a sin for me.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

It can’t be just about intention though. Because then NFP would be a sin too because your intention in this very deliberate daily act of charting, etc. would be exactly the same as in eating honey in your example

 

[Lasting_faith]

Would it not be easier to say that “children are Gods gift, and the greatest gift so it is not up to us to decide when we are ready to receive it”?

And yes, sex is good, and married persons can enjoy it as much as they want. (OK, gluttony is a sin but I don’t think it will apply on sex?)

 

[MJJean]

I have a three-part question about NFP / contraception that I would like your thoughts on:

1. It strikes me that NFP is inherently biased against women. To wit, women are most likely to want/enjoy sex at exactly the time of the month when NFP requires them to abstain, while men don’t have that same cyclical sex drive issue. Also, in humane vitae (sp?) the pope said he was worried that the use of contraception would cause men to see their partners as just objects of gratification – completely ignoring the fact that women might be happy to get a little gratification too.
2. In its own way, NFP seems just as contrary to “natural law” as contraceptive methods. If sex is inherently tied to procreation, then why are humans one of the few species that are sexually attracted/active throughout the cycle and not just during the fertile period? We are designed to have sex whether we’re fertile or not – so how can we say that procreation is an inherent part of the act?
3. I can understand banning hormonal contraceptives, as they are a) highly effective and b) bad for the embryo in those rare instances where they aren’t effective. But how can we say that condoms prevent contraception? With standard (not perfect) use, they have a fail rate of like 20 pregnancies per 100 women. I’m pretty sure God could beat those odds if he really wanted to bring new life into the world. Are other actions that lower your chances of pregnancy but don’t actually prevent it (like…frequent hot tub use, lets say) also sinful?

Thoughts?

1. Not true. Just as women feel increased need for sex during their fertile times, their husbands respond to their behavioral and hormonal changes and also feel increased desire during that time. If a couple chooses to abstain during fertile times to avoid pregnancy they are both suffering.
2. Procreation is the reason for the sex act during fertile times, but not the only reason for sex. Procreation is an intrinsic part of the sex act, but the other part is pair bonding. Shared physical pleasure and the accompanying emotional intimacy strengthen the bond a couple feel toward each other. Unity. If a couple is having sex during a fertile time they are surrendering to each other and to God by being willing to accept a pregnancy. If they abstain during that time, they are suffering the pangs of unrequited desire together and deepening their bond that way.
3. I am just converting to Catholicism. I have used birth control pills and condoms. I got pregnant with my eldest child while taking BCP exactly as directed. I got pregnant with my second child using condoms. My youngest was not planned, but we weren’t doing anything to prevent conception, either. I truly believe that if God wants a woman to become pregnant nothing will prevent it. However, the Church teaches that contraception is a sin and that’s that.

However, the Church does make allowances for medical treatments with a contraceptive side effect. Example: A woman with a hormone imbalance on birth control pills to correct the problem. She is using a contraceptive, but not for the purposes of contraception. So, I believe intent matters quite a lot! If a man is using a hot tub to lower sperm count to avoid conception, then his intent is to contracept and it is a sin.

What is the alternative to NFP? Birth control. Under most birth control, a woman NEVER feels the natural friskiness that comes over her at the peak of her cycle. How is this better?

God doesn’t work like that. When I shoot a gun at someone, God doesn’t decide that He really likes that person, and cause my gun to misfire. God respects our choices – if we choose to avoid life, He will respect that choice. If we choose to avoid life in an 80% sure way, He will make it so that we don’t conceive 80% of the time.

Not necessarily true. I have been on a few forms of hormonal birth control. I still felt highly increased “friskiness” during what would have naturally been my fertile time.

I think the effectiveness of contraceptives are a function of Gods will for a person. I know too many pill and condom babies and even few kids born after sterilization.

 

[bzkoss236]

2 things

1. NFP can be used to either avoid conceiving or to conceive, contraceptives can’t do that.
2. NFP doesn’t change the body, which is why it isn’t immoral. Using contraceptives is purposefully altering the body for the purpose of “breaking” sex (altering it outside of it’s means). NFP works with the body’s natural means so you can choose when to have sex as opposed to altering your body with harmful chemicals.

Also, when done correctly, NFP has a higher efficiency than contraceptives. And, if you do happen to conceive, NFP doesn’t abort the baby.

 

[RoseMary131]

It is tied to effectiveness – let me explain. I have read on several NFP websites that avoiding pregnancy is not sinful. Instead, they say, creating a barrier during the sex act to prevent pregnancy is sinful. But if your “barrier” isn’t 100% effective then you aren’t actually PREVENTING anything, are you? Just as with using hot tubs or wearing briefs, etc. you’re lowering the likelihood, not making it impossible

The Church teaching is that sexual love is two fold: it draws spouses closer (more strongly) to each other AND has the potential to create new life with God. (God gives the child his/her soul.)

If the couple chooses the sexual intercourse to not be an act of love - this would be wrong.

If the couple chooses to put something into play in which they were purposefully trying to stop the natural process of procreation - this would be wrong.

Does the person attempt to destroy the sperm by wearing briefs or using a hot tub? Are they wearing briefs because that is the type underwear they want? Are they using the hot tub for relaxation? What is the person’s intention in wearing briefs and using the hot tub?

The purpose of wearing the condom during sexual intercourse IS to avoid procreation. Using the condom says to the wife, husband, and God - “We actively choose to engage in marital love at this moment. We know our union can bring about new life. We actively choose to have our union but not new life. Our intent is to attempt to prevent new life with the use of this condom.”

But if your “barrier” isn’t 100% effective then you aren’t actually PREVENTING anything, are you?

The couple may not actually prevent conception but the intentional ATTEMPT was made. The desire was there. The purpose of the barrier was to attempt to prevent.

If you seek to do good and it fails - your INTENT and ATTEMPT was still to do good. If you hosted a fund raiser to give money to the poor - but after the expenses of the fund raiser you lost money - therefore had no money to give to the poor - your attempt was still to do good.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It can’t be just about intention though. Because then NFP would be a sin too because your intention in this very deliberate daily act of charting, etc. would be exactly the same as in eating honey in your example

Not true. People are perfectly free not to have sex. The Church does not compromise this freedom. There is nothing blameworthy in refraining from a good action, an action of lovemaking. When couples on NFP say they are avoiding, what they mean is that they are refraining from making love, which is not wrong.

There is something blameworthy (according to the Church) in having sex, and seeking to avoid the consequences of sex. That’s where the honey example comes in.

As for charting, the intention in the act of charting should be to *inform *the decisions a couple makes about making love. If the couple is dead set against having children, you’re right, their intentions in charting might be wrong, and that would be a problem. But most people who use NFP merely let the chart inform their lovemaking decisions; they are not bullied by the chart. And the action of charting is not believed to have some *intrinsic connection *to avoiding pregnancy.

 

[RoseMary131]

It can’t be just about intention though. Because then NFP would be a sin too because your intention in this very deliberate daily act of charting…

Charting does not prevent the union of sperm and egg.

Charting allows the couple to know when they are a fertile couple and when they are not a fertile couple. Understanding the body is not sinful.

Being Open to Life is a key part. When the couple is engaging in sexual love during their infertile time, they are doing nothing to not Be Open to Life. They are saying, "God, if You see we are fertile and we see we are not while we are engaging in our marital love, we accept Your gift of new Life.

 

[Em_in_FL]

It can’t be just about intention though. Because then NFP would be a sin too because your intention in this very deliberate daily act of charting, etc. would be exactly the same as in eating honey in your example

Technically - the end intent AND the means are both discussed in the catechism.

It’s okay to have the intent of avoiding children - for just/graves reasons. The church teaches that these reasons may not be selfish in nature. We cannot just be “done having kids because I want a perfect family of 2 children and a big house and 2 cars and a boat”… the reasons must be just/grave to purposefully avoid.

The means can be achieved in a moral (NFP) or immoral (artificial contraception) way…

BOTH means and intent are important.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Also, when done correctly, NFP has a higher efficiency than contraceptives.

Not true. Read the stats from science journals / NIH, not the church

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Charting does not prevent the union of sperm and egg.

Charting allows the couple to know when the are a fertile couple and when they are not a fertile couple. Understanding the body is not sinful.

And to make sure that there’s no egg waiting when the sperm gets there … Which prevents any possible union

 

[Em_in_FL]

Not true. Read the stats from science journals / NIH, not the church

Please keep in mind where those statistics are coming from as well - they INCLUDE “bad” (not modern) methods, including the old “rhythm cycle”.

I highly recommend finding your statistics from the methods themselves - those that are scientifically proven.
This is a decent resource - from a non-Catholic perspective:
tcoyf.com/

Another good resource:
creightonmodel.com/