J
jbm0117
Guest
Please explain to me how the rhythm method is acceptable, while condoms are not? Both are a form of birth control. thx
- Status
K
kage_ar
Guest
First, the rythmn method is not part of modern Natural Family Planning.
From the Catechism:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm
**2370 **Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
From the Catechism:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm
**2370 **Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
A
Apryl
Guest
One is an ARTIFICIAL form of Birth Control - pregnancy prevention. The other is natural.
To prohibit NATURAL forms of pregnancy prevention would suggest that every time you can have sex with someone, esp your spouse, you do, and that’s that.
With artificial forms of birth control, in particular the condom, you are putting something between you and your spouse.
That’s like holding your new baby wearing latext gloves (ewww)
Or like wearing a swim cap to get a shampoo (ehhhh?)
There is NOTHING in the church that says that people should have as many babies as their bodies will allow. Nothing.
But you shouldn’t do things to keep you from your spouse in a preventive action.
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
Christopher West responds to this question here:
Contraception vs. NFP
*A further question arises: Would a couple be doing anything to falsify their sexual union if they embraced during a time of natural infertility? Take, for example, a couple past childbearing years. They know their union will not result in a child. Are they violating their vows if they engage in intercourse with this knowledge? Are they contracepting? No. Contraception, by definition, is the choice to engage in an act of intercourse, but then do something else to render it sterile. This can be done by using various devices, hormones, surgical procedures, and the age-old method of withdrawal.
Couples who use natural family planning (NFP) when they have a just reason to avoid pregnancy never render their sexual acts sterile; they never contracept. They track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, embrace when they are naturally infertile. Readers unfamiliar with modern NFP methods should note that they are 98-99% effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. Furthermore, any woman, regardless of the regularity of her cycles, can use NFP successfully. This is not your grandmother’s “rhythm method.”
To some people this seems like splitting hairs. “What’s the big difference,” they ask, “between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? The end result is the same: both couples avoid children.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between killing Grandma and just waiting until she dies naturally? End result’s the same thing: dead Grandma. Yes, but one is a serious sin called murder, and the other is an act of God.
If a person can tell the difference between euthanasia and natural death, he can tell the difference between contraception and NFP. It’s the same difference. I’m not equating contraception and murder. That’s not the analogy. Rather, Grandma’s natural death and a woman’s natural period of infertility are both acts of God. But in killing Grandma or in rendering sex sterile, we take the powers of life into our own hands—just like the deceiver originally tempted us to do—and make ourselves like God (see Gn 3:5).
This is why Pope John Paul II concludes that contraception “is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God” (address Oct. 10, 1983).*
Contraception vs. NFP
*A further question arises: Would a couple be doing anything to falsify their sexual union if they embraced during a time of natural infertility? Take, for example, a couple past childbearing years. They know their union will not result in a child. Are they violating their vows if they engage in intercourse with this knowledge? Are they contracepting? No. Contraception, by definition, is the choice to engage in an act of intercourse, but then do something else to render it sterile. This can be done by using various devices, hormones, surgical procedures, and the age-old method of withdrawal.
Couples who use natural family planning (NFP) when they have a just reason to avoid pregnancy never render their sexual acts sterile; they never contracept. They track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, embrace when they are naturally infertile. Readers unfamiliar with modern NFP methods should note that they are 98-99% effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. Furthermore, any woman, regardless of the regularity of her cycles, can use NFP successfully. This is not your grandmother’s “rhythm method.”
To some people this seems like splitting hairs. “What’s the big difference,” they ask, “between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? The end result is the same: both couples avoid children.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between killing Grandma and just waiting until she dies naturally? End result’s the same thing: dead Grandma. Yes, but one is a serious sin called murder, and the other is an act of God.
If a person can tell the difference between euthanasia and natural death, he can tell the difference between contraception and NFP. It’s the same difference. I’m not equating contraception and murder. That’s not the analogy. Rather, Grandma’s natural death and a woman’s natural period of infertility are both acts of God. But in killing Grandma or in rendering sex sterile, we take the powers of life into our own hands—just like the deceiver originally tempted us to do—and make ourselves like God (see Gn 3:5).
This is why Pope John Paul II concludes that contraception “is to be judged so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God” (address Oct. 10, 1983).*
M
monicatholic
Guest
i want to avoid gaining weight.
my best options:
*take a pill that makes my body digest food differently-- like fat burners or laxitives etc-- which allow me to eat as often and as much as i want, but to skip the natural consequences and natural goal of eating-- which is caloric intake
*binge and purge, which allows me to eat as often and as much as i want, but to skip the natural consequences and natural goal of eating-- which is caloric intake
*change my eating behavior. eat less food or eat less often, which forces me to discipline myself to respect the natural consequences and the natural goal of eating-- which is caloric intake
all of these will help me avoid gaining weight. so, what’s the difference if the result is the same?
my best options:
*take a pill that makes my body digest food differently-- like fat burners or laxitives etc-- which allow me to eat as often and as much as i want, but to skip the natural consequences and natural goal of eating-- which is caloric intake
*binge and purge, which allows me to eat as often and as much as i want, but to skip the natural consequences and natural goal of eating-- which is caloric intake
*change my eating behavior. eat less food or eat less often, which forces me to discipline myself to respect the natural consequences and the natural goal of eating-- which is caloric intake
all of these will help me avoid gaining weight. so, what’s the difference if the result is the same?
L
LongingForLight
Guest
A healthy body is fertile (infertility is a disorder). People who use contraceptives that render the body infertile are effectively inflicting themselves with a disorder. Similarly, a healthy marital act is rendered disordered when fertility is removed via barrier methods. With NFP, no marital act is disordered. Each marital act is just as ordered as it would be if you were not avoiding during the fertile periods.
Not to mention that placing a “barrier” between the man and the woman during marital relations has a wretched symbolism for the marriage itself, which is supposed to be a full unity, like “one flesh” - not with barriers. In a similar fashion to how barrier methods place a barrier between husband and wife, the selfish removal of the natural fertility tends to create barriers in the marriage relationship.
I wish I could say this was all theory, but I’m watching family struggle through the consequences of those barriers now. It’s taken them years to realize how many sexual issues were masked by the barriers of ABC - it really did create a “blind spot” in their marriage, where they didn’t notice selfish attitudes towards sex sprouting until they were in counseling for divorce. They simply weren’t thinking about fertility or children in connection w/ sex (something that, in practice, NFP almost forces you to do), and . . . well, that causes problems. Disordered (sinful) marital relations tend to lead to disordered marraige relationships.
Not to mention that placing a “barrier” between the man and the woman during marital relations has a wretched symbolism for the marriage itself, which is supposed to be a full unity, like “one flesh” - not with barriers. In a similar fashion to how barrier methods place a barrier between husband and wife, the selfish removal of the natural fertility tends to create barriers in the marriage relationship.
I wish I could say this was all theory, but I’m watching family struggle through the consequences of those barriers now. It’s taken them years to realize how many sexual issues were masked by the barriers of ABC - it really did create a “blind spot” in their marriage, where they didn’t notice selfish attitudes towards sex sprouting until they were in counseling for divorce. They simply weren’t thinking about fertility or children in connection w/ sex (something that, in practice, NFP almost forces you to do), and . . . well, that causes problems. Disordered (sinful) marital relations tend to lead to disordered marraige relationships.
J
jbm0117
Guest
deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation
Definition from:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraception
I think this includes all forms of contraception.
Definition from:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraception
I think this includes all forms of contraception.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
Thankfully, I don’t get my morality from Mirriam-Webster, and as an Eastern Catholic, I would guess you don’t either…
With proper/just reasons, avoiding children isn’t immoral (btw, total abstinence would be “CONTRACEPTION” by your dictionary definition). It’s the means we use to do this. NFP keeps each and every marital act intact–ordered toward procreation (NOT FERTILE). Contraception, by it’s very ACTION, each and every marital act is NOT intact–it is not ordered toward procreation because it has interefered with the act, either via actual barrier or chemical barriers.
If you do a search on this topic in the forums, btw, you will get TONS of similar threads…
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Others have already tried to explain the moral difference. Now, would you please explain why people choose to use condoms over the rhythm method or other methods of NFP approved by the Roman Catholic Church. Thanks.
- Status