Indeed it is birth control, and the church does not condemn controlling/spacing births (unless we are doing it for selfish reason/not serious reasons). It would be apart of what the church calls responsible parenthood. What the Church condemns is contraception, (ie those acts which are against conception, while still engaging in the marital act). Is not complete abstinence between a married couple birth control, if the are abstaining to prevent births?When I was married and didn’t think there was anything wrong with birth control, I still abhored the pill and felt weird using condoms with my husband. So I used the calendar method, which surprise, surprise, worked for me. When my friends would ask me what I was using for birth control, I would say “the calendar method”.
Anyway, my point is not to talk about my business but to say that NFP is still a birth control method. It’s just not artificial, IMHO.
I know it is accepted by the Church and probably if I were to remarry, I would use it. But I never could understand how people cannot see that it is still a method of birth control.
In fact, the Church recognizes it as birth control. The problem is that many people equate birth control with contraception, and they are not the same thing, since the Church distinguishes between the two.But I never could understand how people cannot see that it is still a method of birth control.
Well, dictionary.com defines contraception asIn fact, the Church recognizes it as birth control. The problem is that many people equate birth control with contraception, and they are not the same thing, since the Church distinguishes between the two.
Which definition does the Church use?the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.
Hmm.Indeed it is birth control, and the church does not condemn controlling/spacing births (unless we are doing it for selfish reason/not serious reasons). It would be apart of what the church calls responsible parenthood. What the Church condemns is contraception, (ie those acts which are against conception, while still engaging in the marital act). Is not complete abstinence between a married couple birth control, if the are abstaining to prevent births?
Read that sentence again. It comes from the Catechism and the Catechism also says NFP is moral, pretty sure the Catechism doesn’t contradict itself, so what does the sentence mean? The Church when talking about the prevention of conception is referring to each individual marital act. Thus when a couple chooses not to have sex (for whatever reason) the are not using a “technique” to avoid conception, no more than a completely abstinent couple. So when this sentence refers to techniques it is referring to coitus interuptus or withdrawl (and perhaps oral, anal, or manual sex).
The one thing I’ve learned about Catholicism from these forums is that the Church’s definition is often not the same as the conventional definition.Well, dictionary.com defines contraception as
The technique or method, would be the charting, temperature taking, mucus measuring, etc. I’m not too versed in NFP.Read that sentence again. It comes from the Catechism and the Catechism also says NFP is moral, pretty sure the Catechism doesn’t contradict itself, so what does the sentence mean? The Church when talking about the prevention of conception is referring to each individual marital act. Thus when a couple chooses not to have sex (for whatever reason) the are not using a “technique” to avoid conception, no more than a completely abstinent couple. So when this sentence refers to techniques it is referring to coitus interuptus or withdrawl (and perhaps oral, anal, or manual sex).
Nope, HV (Humanae vitae) recognizes several reasons.Hmm.
Wouldn’t spacing births for the most part be “selfish reasons” unless it were for let’s say medical reasons?
HV, 16If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or** psychological** conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier. (20)
In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person. (9)
In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them.
HV, 10In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.
I understand. I just bring up these points to show that it is not really far-fetched for people to see NFP as birth control or contraception.The one thing I’ve learned about Catholicism from these forums is that the Church’s definition is often not the same as the conventional definition.
As an example, a striking one deals with the procreative nature of sex. The Church states things such as the sex act being “unitive and procreative,” or "ordered toward procreation. However, by no conventional definition is, say, the sex act between and 80-year-old couple, the man being sterile from cancer treatment involving radiation and the woman have a hysterectomy, procreative. The Church states it is, thus the Church has Her own definition.
This is also the case with the issue at hand. If you read Humanae Vitae, there are clear distinctions made between “birth control,” “artificial birth control,” “contraception,” etc.
Birth control is clearly allowed if it is a natural method and for a just reason.
Catechism
For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality. [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2368]
The “just” reason part is where people disagree.However, profoundly different from any contraceptive practice is the behavior of married couples, who, always remaining fundamentally open to the gift of life, live their intimacy only in the unfruitful periods, when they are led to this course by serious motives of responsible parenthood. This is true both from the anthropological and moral points of view, because it is rooted in a different conception of the person and of sexuality. The witness of couples who for years have lived in harmony with the plan of the Creator, and who, for proportionately serious reasons, licitly use the methods rightly called “natural,” confirms that it is possible for spouses to live the demands of chastity and of married life with common accord and full self-giving. [Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, 2.6]
And then the question becomes “what is a grave reason”?Nope, HV (Humanae vitae) recognizes several reasons.
HV, 16
HV, 10
But that does not change the nature of the marital act. No temperature or mucus observation I make is going to make me infertile I either am or am not.The technique or method, would be the charting, temperature taking, mucus measuring, etc. I’m not too versed in NFP.
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m only exploring the argument, so don’t take anything personally.But that does not change the nature of the marital act. No temperature or mucus observation I make is going to make me infertile I either am or am not.
Charting does not avoid conception, it is the abstinence which prevents conception.
Now can someone tell me how mutually agreed upon abstaining is wrong/immoral or the same as contraception. I have never seen a good (or any) explanation.
And the marital act is the same regardless of when we choose to engage in it on we can’t use to not have sex.
Hmm, under your logic I must be contracepting right now, since I know I am infertile due to being postpartum and breastfeeding. Under LAM rules, I am infertile (98%) as long as I am exclusively breastfeeding, have not had a period, and baby is under 6 months old. So what do you suggest we do. Not have sex at all? Or make sure we have sex during our first fertile period? That seems like an odd sort of logic.
Hmm.Augustine qoute.
Aren’t you the ones [the Manicheans] who were accustomed to advise us, as much as you could, to pay attention to the time when the woman is able to conceive after menstruation and to abstain from sex at that time, lest a soul become involved with flesh? From this it follows that you recommend marriage, not for the procreation of children, but for the satisfaction of sexual desire. However, marriage, as the nuptial documents themselves proclaim, unites the male and the female for the procreation of children. Therefore, anyone who says that having children is a more serious sin than having sex certainly forbids marriage, and no longer makes the woman a wife but a whore, if she (in full knowledge of the facts) is married to a man in order to fulfill his sexual desire. After all, if she is a wife, then it is a marriage. But there is no marriage where actions are taken to prevent her becoming a mother; therefore she is no wife. Ergo, you forbid marriage, and you possess no argument by which to defend yourself against this crime, which once was prophesied about you by the Holy Spirit (1 Tim 4:3).
De liber grammatica, 18.65
Sorry, did not mean to come across as taking it personally, just trying to show you how the logic would work in a real life scenario. It doesn’t work if you actually apply the same conditions.I’m not suggesting anything. I’m only exploring the argument, so don’t take anything personally.
You breastfeed to nourish your baby. If it happens to delay your period, then it does.
Let’s use me for example. If I were to remarry right now, with two kids in college and one in high school, I can tell you right now, I would not want any children. Yet, if I am to marry I should be open to life no? I know people my age who are still having children. Most likely if I used NFP, I would be using it with a contraceptive mentality because I would want to use it indefinitely.
Any sort of abstention from the “marital embrace” (popular phrase on here), would most likely have for me as a goal, the avoidance of pregnancy. Yes, I can still get pregnant even with NFP, but the goal would be to not get pregnant.
That is what some mean when they say that some people use NFP as contraception.
I agree with the above.Using NFP for selfish reasons is the manifestation of a vice and sin to be sure, but not the same sin as contraception (which may be used for selfish reasons but also for not selfish reasons).
My first thought when I think of spacing births is, for many people, it may be far too demanding emotionally, physically and financially to handle the costs and time needed of infants in very close succession, especially when factors like hospital bills are taken into account. Additionally, I think it would be just reason if the parents honestly and truly thought their children and family in general would fair better by the children being a few years apart, just as some parents believe it is better for children to be closer together in age.And then the question becomes “what is a grave reason”?
Think of it this way. A meteorologist uses lots of different instruments to determine if it will rain. When it actually does rain, meteorologist did not cause the rain, it just happens.The technique or method, would be the charting, temperature taking, mucus measuring, etc. I’m not too versed in NFP.
I get why some people object to the use of NFP under any circumstances. They don’t believe it is possible to engage in sex that is known to be infertile without it being totally divorced from the procreative aspect of sexuality. They’re wrong, but I can understand where they come from. The part I DON’T understand is how they can call themselves “ultraconservative catholics” when their beliefs are in explicit conflict with authoritative catholic teaching (including both encyclicals and the catechism). To me, when you substitute your own understanding of Scripture or Tradition in stubborn opposition to the legitimate successors of the apostles you no longer have any logical reason for relying on the authority of ANY of the successors of the apostles.Of course, contraception is gravely sinful, and so is using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. However, I’ve encountered some ultraconservative Catholics who claim that using NFP is intrinsically evil …
Excellent analogy!Think of it this way. A meteorologist uses lots of different instruments to determine if it will rain. When it actually does rain, meteorologist did not cause the rain, it just happens.
With NFP the user determines when fertility happens. Knowing when one is fertile does not cause the infertility, nor does that knowledge prevent pregnancy. The only way the couple avoids pregnancy is by avoiding sex while she is fertile.
It isn’t the same as using a device to make the fertile day infertile.