Catholic mum answers, "isn't NFP just Catholic birth control?"

[underacloud]

Exactly, which is contrary to the purpose of marriage (by the Catholic definition anyway).

It’s one of the reasons I jumped off the anti-contraception bandwagon. Whatever we do to intentionally evade pregnancy, be it via abstinence or the pill is still an intentional act of evasion, contrary to the nature of intercourse and marriage.

Unless you’re leaving it down to chance every time you have intercourse, you are on some level contracepting.

Penny, the only reason I haven’t answered your question (if it was aimed at myself and Jaaanosik) is because I am not a practicing Catholic. Would you still want me to elaborate?

All your concerns are addressed in Humanae Vitae, which you can read here: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

A bit of light reading for you. It should help clear up your misunderstandings regarding contraception and morally acceptable methods of birth control (essentially periodic abstinence). You may still disagree with the conclusions, but at least you will better understand the principles behind these teachings.

But to put it simply, once again, you can’t be contracepting if you’re not having sex. Abstinence (total or periodic) can be birth control, but not contraception. It’s an important disctintion in this doctrine.

 

[EasterJoy]

…Whatever we do to intentionally evade pregnancy, be it via abstinence or the pill is still an intentional act of evasion, contrary to the nature of intercourse and marriage.

Unless you’re leaving it down to chance every time you have intercourse, you are on some level contracepting…

This simply is not true. Contraception and avoiding pregnancy are two different things. Otherwise, even avoiding pregnancy by total abstinence would still be an unethical use of the sexual faculty within marriage.

Now, if you are saying that there are better or worse reasons for avoiding pregnancy even by legitimate means, then you are correct about that. It is not true, however, that it is unethical to know your own body well enough to be aware of whether or not intercourse is more or less likely to result in conception. You may as well say it is unethical for a couple to know where babies come from, lest they use that information to avoid pregnancy by total abstinence.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Penny, the only reason I haven’t answered your question (if it was aimed at myself and Jaaanosik) is because I am not a practicing Catholic. Would you still want me to elaborate?

Only if you wish.

 

[ahs]

If we go by the current literal interpretation of contraception then yes it is. Of course we can’t have sex all day every day, but to intentionally avoid sex for days, weeks, months or however long to avoid pregnancy is still a method (albit a rather extreme one) of contraception.

This logic that has lead to the condemnation of condoms, the pill and such just doesn’t hold up in this light, it’s neither practicable, practical, and is no better or worse than abstinence or NFP. It’s all the same, just a different implementation with the same intent; avoiding conception.

The intent of avoiding pregnancy might be the same (NFP vs. contraception) but that is the only thing they share in common. Couples use information gathered via NFP to abstain from an act altogether, or engage in an act in the natural manner. Couples who use contraception engage in an act while simultaneously seeking to remove the procreative nature from an act which is taking place.

Contraception is the intentional act of seeking to remove the procreative nature from a sex act which is taking place. If you think NFP is the same thing, then please answer:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place? (The period when couples are abstaining from sex.)
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

“NFP is information that can tell a couple whether they are fertile or infertile, whether they can increase or decrease their chances of conception, on any given day (by engaging in an act, or abstaining from it). Sex is an act. Contraception is the acting-against-conception that takes place when an act is engaged in. Catholic married couples are not required to have sex at any particular interval. Catholic couples are required, by God’s natural moral law, to have sex in the natural manner WHEN THEY DO have sex.”
(-taken from “A Catholic Response to ‘The Scandal of NFP’” )

 

[Monica4316]

One thing that I find is not being talked about enough, is that NFP is only accepted by the Church to be used in grave situations… the Pope who wrote about this (I’m sorry I don’t remember but maybe it was Pope Pius XII?) talked about situations like being in a concentration camp, DIRE poverty, world war, etc… he didn’t mention simple situations like not being ready for kids or not having money for extracurricular activities etc.

 

[underacloud]

One thing that I find is not being talked about enough, is that NFP is only accepted by the Church to be used in grave situations… the Pope who wrote about this (I’m sorry I don’t remember but maybe it was Pope Pius XII?) talked about situations like being in a concentration camp, DIRE poverty, world war, etc… he didn’t mention simple situations like not being ready for kids or not having money for extracurricular activities etc.

While the term “grave” has been used at times, the terms that are currently used in official Church discussion of NFP are “serious reasons” or “just reasons”. The reasons do not have to be dire (ie life threatening). But as some people note, the teaching is pretty vague. Reasons should not be selfish, but beyond that the principle is somewhat open.

Humanae Vitae describes it thus:

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

And the Catechism:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. 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.

 

[fpt]

According to the Teaching of The Roman Catholic Church, the conjugal union of bodies has to respect the natural moral law. This law consists in not to go against this natural moral law: the catholic paradigm is the fact of seeking of the pleasure in the respect of the natural moral law, not more and not less. Do you agree with that? Only, the Catholic Church has this power of interpreting, in the good way with certainty, this natural moral law. Here, the Church says that ,only, the couple has the responsibility (right, obligation and duty) of the responsible procreation (the responsible fatherhood and the responsible motherhood) and that the couple can use the natural rules of the fertility. As couple, we can play with the natural rules of the human being.

Birth control is not contraception. Birth control is moral in the respect of the natural moral law. Thus, birth control is morally fair, in using the cycle of woman (a part of the natural law of woman) and for serious reasons (largo sensu). Birth control is morally wrong if you use the direct and voluntary contraception.

What is the good acception of the birth control? What is the good acception of the contraception? What is the good acception of ends of the marital act? When does the couple have the right of practicing the marital act?

 

[fpt]

These are some exemples for understanding the Catholic teaching.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act during the pregnancy? NO, of course. According the natural law of the cycle of wife, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view are morally wrong.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act during the breastfeeding? NO, of course. According the natural law of the cycle of wife, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view are morally wrong.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act after the menopause? NO, of course. According the natural law of the cycle of wife, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view are morally wrong.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act if the wife does not has: her uterus, ovary, her fallopian tubes or her natural ovulations? NO, of course. According the natural law, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view are morally wrong.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act if the husband does not have his prostate? NO, of course. According the natural law, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view are morally wrong.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act if the husband does not have his spermatic canals? NO, of course. According the natural law, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view are morally wrong.

 

[fpt]

Corrections

These are some exemples for understanding the Catholic teaching.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act during the pregnancy? NO, of course. According the natural law of the cycle of wife, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view are morally wrong.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act during the breastfeeding? NO, of course. According the natural law of the cycle of wife, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view is morally wrong.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act after the menopause? NO, of course. According the natural law of the cycle of wife, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view* is* morally wrong.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act if the wife does not has: her uterus, ovary, her fallopian tubes or her natural ovulations? NO, of course. According the natural law, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view is morally wrong.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act if the husband does not have his prostate? NO, of course. According the natural law, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view is morally wrong.

Is it immoral to practice the marital act if the husband does not have his spermatic canals? NO, of course. According the natural law, normally speaking, the fecundation is impossible. No contraception. Do you refuse the marital act because you think that is it immoral, if yes, your view is morally wrong.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The intent of avoiding pregnancy might be the same (NFP vs. contraception) but that is the only thing they share in common. Couples use information gathered via NFP to abstain from an act altogether, or engage in an act in the natural manner. Couples who use contraception engage in an act while simultaneously seeking to remove the procreative nature from an act which is taking place.

Contraception is the intentional act of seeking to remove the procreative nature from a sex act which is taking place. If you think NFP is the same thing, then please answer:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place? (The period when couples are abstaining from sex.)
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

“NFP is information that can tell a couple whether they are fertile or infertile, whether they can increase or decrease their chances of conception, on any given day (by engaging in an act, or abstaining from it). Sex is an act. Contraception is the acting-against-conception that takes place when an act is engaged in. Catholic married couples are not required to have sex at any particular interval. Catholic couples are required, by God’s natural moral law, to have sex in the natural manner WHEN THEY DO have sex.”
(-taken from “A Catholic Response to ‘The Scandal of NFP’” )

So catholic couples are allowed to do unnatural things in order for NFP to work.
Sticking the thermometer to woman’s body orifices is not natural. NFP is treating fertility like a disease.
Some NFP methods recommend to check cervical position. naturalgynae.com/nav4_9.html How is that natural? That’s disgusting.

From HV:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Based on your logic in point 1) this quote does not include a mutual masturbation as unlawful because there is no before, at the moment, or after sexual intercourse assuming the sexual intercourse definition is penis penetration into the vagina. So if there is no penetration then there is no sexual intercourse then there is no before, at the moment of, or after.
Is that correct? Now when this is the case then it’s a completely different game ball how to make the mutual masturbation unlawful.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Jaaanosik, may I ask you, are you married and having sex? Are you using artificial contraception?
The reason I ask is because the Church allowing NFP should be good news and you don’t seem to see it as such.

 

[ahs]

One thing that I find is not being talked about enough, is that NFP is only accepted by the Church to be used in grave situations… the Pope who wrote about this (I’m sorry I don’t remember but maybe it was Pope Pius XII?) talked about situations like being in a concentration camp, DIRE poverty, world war, etc… he didn’t mention simple situations like not being ready for kids or not having money for extracurricular activities etc.

Actually, the word he used was “iustae causae”, which literally translates, “just causes”. Why someone translated that to “grave reasons” is beyond me, but the Church has since clarified, as another poster just pointed out. That same Pope did not say anything at all about these just cases being “dire” or in cases of “world war”. That was someone else mis-representing what that Pope said. What the Pope said was, "Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.” (Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives)

That you use the words “being in a concentration camp, DIRE poverty, world war” is eerily familiar to me. This is almost exactly what that guy was saying when I argued against his “Scandal of NFP” video. See post #24 for that link…just below that quote I gave.

So catholic couples are allowed to do unnatural things in order for NFP to work.
Sticking the thermometer to woman’s body orifices is not natural.

Grinding wheat with a wheat grinder is also unnatural. So is manufacturing car parts and printing calendars. Are those wrong, too? “Unnatural” in the sense that you are using it doesn’t seem to be a problem. I’m not sure why it would be wrong to use a thermometer to check one’s temperature. Is it a sin to know what one’s temperature is? Or are we only allowed to know our temperature is we feel ill? Healthy people aren’t allowed to know?

NFP is treating fertility like a disease.

Quite the contrary. NFP treats fertility like something created by God that really works. And if you are in a position where conception isn’t a good idea for a time, you might say, “then we had better realize that God knew what he was doing when he gave us sex, so we had better practice some self-control right now.” I don’t see a problem with this. Is there some problem that you see in a couple exercising self-control and abstaining from the marital act in order to avoid conception for a time?

Some NFP methods recommend to check cervical position. naturalgynae.com/nav4_9.html How is that natural? That’s disgusting.

That’s also irrelevant unless you are about to produce the Church teaching that says all things which are subjectively “disgusting” are inherently sinful.

From HV: "Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. "

Based on your logic in point 1) this quote does not include a mutual masturbation as unlawful because there is no before, at the moment, or after sexual intercourse assuming the sexual intercourse definition is penis penetration into the vagina. So if there is no penetration then there is no sexual intercourse then there is no before, at the moment of, or after.
Is that correct?

You are forgetting the Church teaching that directly condemns masturbation, which is entirely different from a sex act, which you just unwittingly pointed out. Please do not resort to logical fallacy.

Now when this is the case then it’s a completely different game ball how to make the mutual masturbation unlawful.

No it’s not. It’s arguing a red-herring…possibly a strawman.

Back to the actual subject matter of whether contraception is the same as NFP, and knowing that NFP is information a couple uses to decide whether or not to engage in a marital act, would you care to answer these:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place? (The period when couples are abstaining from sex.)
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Jaaanosik, may I ask you, are you married and having sex? Are you using artificial contraception?
The reason I ask is because the Church allowing NFP should be good news and you don’t seem to see it as such.

NFP is good for some but it does not work for others.

 

[Mumbles140]

Exactly what you said: “just like when you are sick”.
NFP treats the fertility “just like when you are sick”.

That’s the comparison you want to draw? Ignore the argument itself and throw your hopes at a cheap shot? You mentioned “orifices”, I was correcting you, showing that nothing was ‘unnatural’ about how the temperature is taken.

 

[Mumbles140]

Putting a condom over the penis doesn’t alter the body either, but it is done for exactly the same purpose as NFP.

It’s still a method of avoiding conception. Contraception is by definition undertaking a method of avoiding conception.

It actually kind of does. You’re attempting to reduce the chance of pregnancy either way.

1. A condom does alter the act. It is literally putting a barrier, with chemicals designed to kill cells, between the male and female.
2. Your definition fails, as noted by the ‘Abstinence’ post.
3. Reducing the chance of pregnancy is called birth control. God allows for moral birth control (although not unlimited use thereof), of which NFP is a popular method. God does not allow for artificial birth control, which are the methods you are comparing NFP to. That is because these means take away the unitive and procreative nature of the act itself, regardless of the chances of fertility. By your logic, an infertile married couple engaging in the marital act would be contracepting because they are reducing the risk of pregnancy.

 

[EasterJoy]

One thing that I find is not being talked about enough, is that NFP is only accepted by the Church to be used in grave situations… the Pope who wrote about this (I’m sorry I don’t remember but maybe it was Pope Pius XII?) talked about situations like being in a concentration camp, DIRE poverty, world war, etc… he didn’t mention simple situations like not being ready for kids or not having money for extracurricular activities etc.

A concentration camp? A world war? Heaven forbid that the Pope ever implied these were anything but the most remote possibility for the vast majority of Catholics, let alone the only sort of reasons that Catholics might rightly elect to refrain from marital relations.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
Grinding wheat with a wheat grinder is also unnatural. So is manufacturing car parts and printing calendars. Are those wrong, too? “Unnatural” in the sense that you are using it doesn’t seem to be a problem. I’m not sure why it would be wrong to use a thermometer to check one’s temperature. Is it a sin to know what one’s temperature is? Or are we only allowed to know our temperature is we feel ill? Healthy people aren’t allowed to know?
…

If a healthy person would be measuring temperature daily without a reason then it’s an indication of a possible mental issue.

I don’t have a problem with doing unnatural things for a good end. Taking blood samples, x-rays, … all kind of unnatural things are justified because of a good end.
Having said the moral theology says that the end does not justify the means.
Do you know a difference between mutilation and amputation?

As I said I don’t have an issue with doing the unnatural things for a good end but I have an issue with double standard. If the unnatural stuff is justified for NFP then why it’s not justified for other non-abortive birth controls?

 

[Mumbles140]

Exactly, which is contrary to the purpose of marriage (by the Catholic definition anyway).

It’s one of the reasons I jumped off the anti-contraception bandwagon. Whatever we do to intentionally evade pregnancy, be it via abstinence or the pill is still an intentional act of evasion, contrary to the nature of intercourse and marriage.

Unless you’re leaving it down to chance every time you have intercourse, you are on some level contracepting.

Your assumptions regarding sexuality, abstinence, and contraception appear to be quite ‘unique’. Preventing conception is neither good nor evil - it is morally neutral, just like having a glass of wine. There are appropriate times for it, such as for people who are not married, or for Catholics in a marriage not yet recognized by the Church (there have been several recent examples as this issue commonly occurs in relation to RCIA).

The statements you make may be your opinions, but they are certainly not the Church teachings, and I’d have a hard time imagining them in a specific moral code. For example, your ‘leaving it to chance’ analogy fails because every sexual act carries some risk to it. Even surgical procedures are not always (or immediately) 100% certain to prevent conception. Condoms and the pill also have ‘effectiveness’ ratings that are below 100%. So, under your definition, no sexual act could be contraceptive because all possible ways carry the chance of pregnancy.

Also, I find it interesting that you believe all marital acts should lead to pregnancy. I base this on your statement that anything to avoid pregnancy is against the nature of marriage and intercourse. So what about a couple who wants to have sex while the woman is pregnant? Surely, she cannot become pregnant again, so is that act against the nature of intimacy? If it is, then they must certainly abstain from sex while she is pregnant. Oh, wait, that means they are violating the nature by abstaining while she is pregnant. OK, so women can’t get pregnant because that leads to a violation of the nature of marriage. But if they never get pregnant, that means we are violating the nature. Do you see how this argument folds upon itself?

 

[PennyinCanada]

NFP is good for some but it does not work for others.

OK. That doesn’t answer my question though.
Should I assume with that answer you are using the pill? I hate to assume anything.

It would answer the question I have why someone is working so hard to discredit the use of NFP making it ‘the same as using the pill’.

I would rather see a fellow Catholic say it’s a difficult teaching and we are struggling with it then discredit it and keep insisting it’s the same as the pill even after so many threads explaining how it is not.

Whether you understand the teaching or haven’t gotten there yet, the Church has the authority from Christ to teach on faith and morals of it’s members. If the Church has given us NFP to use, I submit to the authority she has, and I’m very happy for the gift of NFP.

 

[Avocadomom]

If a healthy person would be measuring temperature daily without a reason then it’s an indication of a possible mental issue.

I don’t have a problem with doing unnatural things for a good end. Taking blood samples, x-rays, … all kind of unnatural things are justified because of a good end.
Having said the moral theology says that the end does not justify the means.
Do you know a difference between mutilation and amputation?

As I said I don’t have an issue with doing the unnatural things for a good end but I have an issue with double standard. If the unnatural stuff is justified for NFP then why it’s not justified for other non-abortive birth controls?

Because NFP simply takes advantage of your natural periods of infertility, and contraception lets you have sex when you are fertile but circumvent the possibility of pregnancy. You are simply making a choice not to have sex on certain days of the month, vs. making a choice to change the nature of sex between spouses.

Is your argument that other forms of birth control should be permissible, or that no regulation of pregnancies should be permissible?