Barrier Method vs. NFP

[Brendan]

Barrier methods do not change or alter a person’s fertility. They keep a barrier between sperm and egg.

Correct, they place a barrier, that alone violates the ‘unitive’ aspects of marriage

In NFP, there’s no female fertility in the act. The essence of contraceptive NFP is about withholding fertility, and abstaining from sex until the wife is infertile. .

Fertility in a woman is cyclical. is a combination of fertile and infertile times. That is how God designed it and that is what NFP accepts.

When spouses ingage in the marital act, unity demands that they accept each other AS GOD MADE THEM.

If God made the woman infertile at that point in time, both spouses accept that. If God mad the woman fertile at that time, both spouses accept that as well. They without nothing.

In a barrier method, there is withholding. One or both spouses seek to reject the level of fertility that God chose to grant them. There is rejection, which is not unitive. They seek to block what God has chosen to give them. NFP does not do that.

 

[fix]

I don’t believe 1 personally, I only raise the question to those who chooose to support NFP and oppose barriers on the grounds of procreation being necessary to the conjugal act. It’s an argument meant to make you question your support for NFP in light of your condemnations of the barrier methods. I want a person to ask themselves, with full knowleldge of how both methods work, if the either of the contraceptive means are any more moral than the others? If so, then why? Procreation is avoided by both means, and both means do not inhibit the unitive nature of the act. The question asked after is whether or not it’s moral to use foreign substances to meet the desired ends.

This may help clarify things a bit:

Contraception is not the same as birth control. In addition to
contraception there are many other ways of controlling births, some morally
good, others morally wicked. One can control births by abortion–a morally
evil way–or by abstaining from coition, either permanently or
periodically. Neither of these latter methods of birth control is
contraceptive.

Contraception does prevent birth, but does so in a specific way. It does so
in a way that entails a twofold choice. There is first the choice to have
intercourse, something known to be intimately related to the generation of
life. There is secondly the choice to impede procreation, whether in
anticipation of the act of intercourse, during it, or while it is having
its natural consequences, and to do so precisely because one does not want
intercourse to lead to the generation of life and one believes that the
intercourse one has freely chosen is the kind of act that may do this. It
is thus proper to speak of contraceptive intercourse.

It is for this reason that Paul VI and the Church teach firmly that the
contraceptive choice is intrinsically disordered. To choose to act in this
way is to choose to act against something really good, and good not merely
in an instrumental way but personally and humanly good. The procreative
meaning of our sexuality and of the marital act is not a good of the
biological order, subhuman and subpersonal in character, but is rather a
good of the human person, a good participating in the goodness of the human
person and of God, the author of our procreativity. The contraceptive
choice is a choice to reject this good of the human person, of human
sexuality, and of marriage…

also:

THE MORAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTRACEPTION AND PERIODIC ABSTINENCE

 

[Questionful]

Come on. People use condoms in order to have sex without conceiving. Of course they are altering fertility. They are using a condom to prevent a pregnancy, all while doing what causes a pregnancy to begin with!

The same argument can be made, and has been made by Theologians AGAINST NFP. Both methods prevent pregnancy and allow sex. How can you not see the role NFP plays in getting between sex and conception? When I return to my laptop, later tonight or tomorrow morning, I’ll provide you with an article and show you that even theologians, (bishops, and I believe Cardinals) recognize that NFP is of the same evil of other methods of control, and that the only argument that differentiated the two was the claim of what was ‘natural’, which they understood was false. I’d be happy to provide the article now, but I’m typing my argument from a phone, and this touch-screen is way too troublesome.

 

[fix]

The same argument can be made, and has been made by Theologians AGAINST NFP. Both methods prevent pregnancy and allow sex. How can you not see the role NFP plays in getting between sex and conception? When I return to my laptop, later tonight or tomorrow morning, I’ll provide you with an article and show you that even theologians, (bishops, and I believe Cardinals) recognize that NFP is of the same evil of other methods of control, and that the only argument that differentiated the two was the claim of what was ‘natural’, which they understood was false. I’d be happy to provide the article now, but I’m typing my argument from a phone, and this touch-screen is way too troublesome.

There is no article you can provide that will supercede the teaching of the magisterium.

 

[fix]

This is exactly what’s wrong with the argument for NFP. You can’t argue GOD’s intent based on human observations of Biological Mechanics. For one, human knowledge is flawed. Ever hear of Aristotlian Biology? Look it up and tell me what it says about semen, sperm, and eggs. Yet, it’s argued that the first encyclical on birth control was BASED on this ‘understanding’ of Biology. Secondly, human knowledge of creation can’t relate to Absolute, Divine Knowledge of the Creator. You can’t possibly infer GODs intent from the nature of His work, and the mechanics of sexual nature. Just because we can detect signs of fertility does not mean we should time sex to be infertile. Just because we have hands that can murder and steal doesn’t mean that we should. If you want GOD’s intent, look to his words.

The teaching is not a physicalistic teaching based solely on biology.

 

[Questionful]

This may help clarify things a bit:

also:

THE MORAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTRACEPTION AND PERIODIC ABSTINENCE

By that definition alone, I can see that the author is someone who is very good at spinning, and engineering words and concepts to their favor. However, it falls short when trying to persuade a person who is intellectually neutral, and has basic knowledge of NFP’s mechanics. NFP is a sexual behavior that impedes procreation by detecting a woman’s pregnancy. The deliberate action of the couple is exploiting a natural occurence in the woman’s biological nature so that the sperm of the husband is released only when there is no egg. Contraception describes the methods the couple uses to intentionally avoid conception when sex is imminent.

 

[surritter]

By that definition alone, I can see that the author is someone who is very good at spinning, and engineering words and concepts to their favor. However, it falls short when trying to persuade a person who is intellectually neutral, and has basic knowledge of NFP’s mechanics.

No offense, QF, but I wonder if you really are intellectually neutral, given the very cogent arguments and evidence that have been presented to you. At least you’re living up to your name.

 

[fix]

By that definition alone, I can see that the author is someone who is very good at spinning, and engineering words and concepts to their favor. However, it falls short when trying to persuade a person who is intellectually neutral, and has basic knowledge of NFP’s mechanics. NFP is a sexual behavior that impedes procreation by detecting a woman’s pregnancy. The deliberate action of the couple is exploiting a natural occurence in the woman’s biological nature so that the sperm of the husband is released only when there is no egg. Contraception describes the methods the couple uses to intentionally avoid conception when sex is imminent.

It is you who are redescribing terms to fit your argument.

NFP does not impede the sexual act at all. The end to space children may be licit, that is not at issue. What is at issue is the means to achieve that end. Claiming there is moral sameness to engaging in the altered marital act and not engaging in the act is to redefine reality.

 

[fix]

Ok, how do I respond to **this **argument??

If NFP is equally or even allegedly more effective in avoiding pregnancy than barrier methods, then why-oh-why are barrier methods banned by the Church? Seems like if Catholics wanted to be truly open to life, they would chose an inferior form of b.c., like barrier methods over NFP. There would be a higher percentage of pregnancies with failed barrier methods than with failed NFP methods.

One of the many problems with these discussions is that we fail to define terms at the start. The marital act is a life offering act if it is not altered. The liklihood of conception is not what defines the morality of the action.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This is exactly what’s wrong with the argument for NFP. You can’t argue GOD’s intent based on human observations of Biological Mechanics. For one, human knowledge is flawed. Ever hear of Aristotlian Biology? Look it up and tell me what it says about semen, sperm, and eggs. Yet, it’s argued that the first encyclical on birth control was BASED on this ‘understanding’ of Biology. Secondly, human knowledge of creation can’t relate to Absolute, Divine Knowledge of the Creator. You can’t possibly infer GODs intent from the nature of His work, and the mechanics of sexual nature. Just because we can detect signs of fertility does not mean we should time sex to be infertile. Just because we have hands that can murder and steal doesn’t mean that we should. If you want GOD’s intent, look to his words.

OK…even before NFP was discovered, women were still able to conceive just 3 or 4 days a month. Even if I have no clue on how my fertility works, I am still only fertile 3-4 days a month. That knowledge is pretty absolute among human females.

You still seem to be trying to make 2 arguments that make no sense simultaneously.

1. It is immoral to have sex unless you are fertile

and

1. sex with a condom is just the same thing.

Please don’t waste time pulling articles regarding the immorality of NFP. I listen to Theologians faithful to Rome.

 

[Questionful]

There is no article you can provide that will supercede the teaching of the magisterium.

Supercede? I didn’t claim it did. It does cast doubt on the teachings. Not that such a thing is wrong, because the teaching on birth regulation has never been infallible,or claimed to be.

 

[fix]

Supercede? I didn’t claim it did. It does cast doubt on the teachings. Not that such a thing is wrong, because the teaching on birth regulation has never been infallible,or claimed to be.

The teaching on contraception has always been taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium. It is in the CCC and various encyclicals. It is deemed intrinsically evil. Are you claiming that the teaching is fallible in that it may be reversed at some point?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Supercede? I didn’t claim it did. It does cast doubt on the teachings. Not that such a thing is wrong, because the teaching on birth regulation has never been infallible,or claimed to be.

You know, Planned Parenthood has lots of pamphlets and articles pointing to the virtues of safe sex also. Doesn’t make them correct.

 

[momor]

I’m still hoping Questionful will be able to respond to my comments in post # 73. I would like to compare his answers with Surriter’s in #75.

In the meantime, I have a couple of comments:

Fix posted this quote:
Contraception is not the same as birth control. In addition to
contraception there are many other ways of controlling births, some morally
good, others morally wicked. One can control births by abortion–a morally
evil way–or by abstaining from coition, either permanently or
periodically. Neither of these latter methods of birth control is
contraceptive.

An agreement is needed on the meaning of the terms contraception and birth control.

1–noun. the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

2-n. Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.
American Heritage Dictionary

3-Use of agents, devices, methods, or procedures which diminish the likelihood of or prevent conception.
Medical Dictionary Online

These definitions would indicate that NFP is contraception as a technique, a sexual practice, and a method and NFP is birth control.

Second comment:
How one can say that both the procreative and unitive aspects of intercourse must be present for the act to be moral THEN say that limiting intercourse to when a woman is infertile is the only moral way to avoid pregnancy?

I don’t get the logic! If you say because it’s still open to life, it can be argued that a couple who is employing test strips and blood tests and fertility meters (take a look at the other NFP forums here) along with the other physical observations could easily be at about 99.9% accuracy. How open to life is that?
Under those circumstances I think it can be argued that the use of a condom with it’s much higher failure rate is more open to life.

 

[surritter]

These definitions would indicate that NFP is contraception as a technique, a sexual practice, and a method and NFP is birth control.

While I can’t argue with a dictionary, I would say that Catholic theology offers a further distinction by using the term “artificial contraception.”

Thus, artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. But “contraception” as a mentality may or may not be moral.

Second comment:
How one can say that both the procreative and unitive aspects of intercourse must be present for the act to be moral THEN say that limiting intercourse to when a woman is infertile is the only moral way to avoid pregnancy?

I don’t get the logic!

Here’s the key: We don’t believe that “both the procreative and unitive aspects of intercourse must be present for the act to be moral.” Rather, we believe that a couple cannot do anything to directly hinder or remove either the procreative or unitive aspect. Notice the difference in those two sentences!

 

[momor]

Here’s the key: We don’t believe that “both the procreative and unitive aspects of intercourse must be present for the act to be moral.” Rather, we believe that a couple cannot do anything to directly hinder or remove either the procreative or unitive aspect. Notice the difference in those two sentences!

But I think that using NFP methodology to determine the wife’s infertile period does directly hinder or remove the procreative aspect. The couple employs their methodology in timing the marital act and it becomes the hindering factor. The methodology is a ‘thing’ outside of the act itself that informs the couple’s ability to remove one of the necessary elements (the ovum) and hinders procreation.

I’m beginning to think that Questionful is coming closer to defining the reason why it is so hard to come to agreement on this topic. He states that theologians originally were against NFP and I think he is implying that somewhere along the line they caved in to pressure from the faithful for a licit way to prevent conception. They started down a slippery slope and now reasonable people are debating NFP vs barrier methods because the logic of the Church’s position in supporting one and not the other is flawed.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

But I think that using NFP methodology to determine the wife’s infertile period does directly hinder or remove the procreative aspect. The couple employs their methodology in timing the marital act and it becomes the hindering factor. The methodology is a ‘thing’ outside of the act itself that informs the couple’s ability to remove one of the necessary elements (the ovum) and hinders procreation.

I’m beginning to think that Questionful is coming closer to defining the reason why it is so hard to come to agreement on this topic. He states that theologians originally were against NFP and I think he is implying that somewhere along the line they caved in to pressure from the faithful for a licit way to prevent conception. They started down a slippery slope and now reasonable people are debating NFP vs barrier methods because the logic of the Church’s position in supporting one and not the other is flawed.

See, if what you are saying in your first paragraph is correct, then sexual realitions would only be allowed when the woman is fertile. There is nothing illicit or immoral on having sexual relations when the wife is not fertile. We are not obliged to be intimate on fertile days. It’s part of a woman’s biology to be infertile during part of the month.

Also, by using contraceptives, barrier methods, the couple is doing what would normally bring about a baby, when it is likely a baby could be conceived and using an outside product to insure a baby does not occur. What would be the difference between a barrier and mutual masturbation?

There really doesn’t need to be a coming to an agreement…contraceptives that alter fertility or prevent fertility are not permitted. They are morally wrong. One either agrees with Mother Church or not. But the Church is not wrong.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Recourse to Infertile Periods

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

This part of Humanae Vitae explains periodic abstainance in a clear and beautiful way!

 

[RobNY]

Supercede? I didn’t claim it did. It does cast doubt on the teachings. Not that such a thing is wrong, because the teaching on birth regulation has never been infallible,or claimed to be.

Even if a teaching has not been declared “infallible,” that doesn’t mean either that it isn’t true, or that we don’t owe our assent to it. And we certainly do owe our assent to this doctrine.

As to its infallibility, the second Vatican Council discussed the nature of infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium. It is to this that Pope Paul VI appealed in Humanae Vitae, and which Card. Ratzinger confirmed when people petitioned the CDF concerning contraception. The truth about the immorality of contraception is part of the deposit of the faith (as taught by the ordinary Magisterium), and hence is irreformable by its nature.

God bless,
Rob

 

[momor]

See, if what you are saying in your first paragraph is correct, then sexual realitions would only be allowed when the woman is fertile.

Yes, when one is using NFP.