Condoms vs. Monthly Abstinence: Either way the intent is to have sex without children (for the time being) ???

[mercygate]

In the first Paragraph it is stated “{are unity, fidelity, indissolubility, and an **openness to the procreation of life./**B]”
**And you go on to reenforce that by stating “action - for example, **direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which ****(either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.”
Well NFP not only hinders the possibility of procreating. It renders it impossible. It is the best known form of contraceptive out side of abstinance. Yet you also state:The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
The reality is the conjugal act is for the sanctity of the marrige, it insures that the two stay as one. A mariage w/o it will falter. If the spouses have sex w/o the purpous of procreating it does not do injury to nature It celebrates the Gifts God has bestowed on us. It does not make me an Adulterer it makes me a loving husband a union that God has been a part of and willcontinue to be a part of.
Huh? You seem not to have quite grasped the fact that NFP does not thwart or distort the act itself. Avoiding intercourse is NOT the same as entering into it but in a way that distorts the act. While NFP CAN be used with sinful intent, it does not – in any coming together of the couple – DO anything CONTRA the divinely ordered purpose of procreation.

A friend of mine did the math. He claims that a couple coming together once a day has the following score: for every 300 times they engage in the marriage act, they could get pregnant only once. Of course, this allows for the 9 months of pregnancy plus natural post-partum infertility. God is a hedonist. He WANTS people to have this great blessing. He just wants to have us enjoy it on HIS terms. He’s always been like that. Fussy, fussy, fussy.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Aren’t legalistic views of behavior no longer justified under Christ’s new covenant? The spirit of your actions is what’s important.

The thought in your head when you practice “NFP” is - “gee, I hope we don’t get pregnant”.

The thought in your head when you use condoms is - “gee, I hope we don’t get pregnant”.

These two people desire the same outcome, and all the theologizing in this thread won’t change that.

 

[1ke]

Aren’t legalistic views of behavior
no longer justified under Christ’s new covenant?

No.

The spirit of your actions is what’s important.

As is the objective morality of the actions.

These two people desire the same outcome,

You are correct. And, the desired outcome is not immoral at all. The Church does not teach that it is.

and all the theologizing in this thread won’t change that.

There is no need to change the desired outcome, as it is not in question.

The issue at hand is whether or not all means to achieve that outcome are moral. The question is, do some means violate God’s law to get to the outcome?

The answer to that question is “yes”, some means violate God’s Law, namely contraception.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Aren’t legalistic views of behavior no longer justified under Christ’s new covenant? The spirit of your actions is what’s important.

The thought in your head when you practice “NFP” is - “gee, I hope we don’t get pregnant”.

The thought in your head when you use condoms is - “gee, I hope we don’t get pregnant”.

These two people desire the same outcome, and all the theologizing in this thread won’t change that.

You’re correct it is the only time in which intent is irrelevant. The Church “bound” on the method of inferring with the natural process of procreation. Allow timing and banning other methods. It really is that simple.

 

[1ke]

You’re correct it is the only time in which intent is irrelevant.

This is not correct.

Moral decision making requires both a moral *end *and a moral means.

The **end **in this case is child spacing, and that end is a moral end.

The **means **can be either continence or contraception, the first is a moral means and the second is not.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This is not correct.

Moral decision making requires both a moral *end *and a moral means.

The **end **in this case is child spacing, and that end is a moral end.

The **means **can be either continence or contraception, the first is a moral means and the second is not.

That is a parse of a parse. The objective is sex without conception. It was always sex without conception and always will be. No matter how you dress this pig it always squeals. NFP is a class on how to have sex without conception. Recruit all the poster children you would like, people who have trouble conceiving. Please do not ask them to say they are typical of NFP participants, only because of the false witness thing.

 

[1ke]

That is a parse of a parse.

No, it is basic Catholic teaching.

The objective is sex without conception. It was always sex without conception and always will be.

No, it is not.

NFP is a class on how to have sex without conception.

No, it is not.

Recruit all the poster children you would like, people who have trouble conceiving. Please do not ask them to say they are typical of NFP participants, only because of the false witness thing.

Huh?

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

No, it is not.

“NFP” is not a method of having sex without conception? Wow, that’s news to me! What is it then?

 

[MaryD7]

“NFP” is not a method of having sex without conception? Wow, that’s news to me! What is it then?

I guess it’s how you look at it. I happen to agree with you but with one difference … NFP allows for the chance for one to slip past the goal line. I think that’s one of those ‘user errors’ I keep reading about.

It does seem to me that the goal is the same … to control how many children one has. No matter how one twists the words the intent is the same.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…NFP can be used with the intent selfishly to limit family size. In that case the intent would be defective and participate in the nature of sin…

…it is the only time in which intent is irrelevant. …

As mercygate mentioned earlier, intent matters when NFP is used to avoid pregnancy. NFP** can** be in a selfish manner, and that is also wrong. Intent matters.

CCC 2368 "…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*…"

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

The thought in your head when you practice “NFP” is - “gee, I hope we don’t get pregnant”.
The thought in your head when you use condoms is - “gee, I hope we don’t get pregnant”.
These two people desire the same outcome, and all the theologizing in this thread won’t change that.

A person murders someone and sneaks out of the house thinking, “Gee, I hope no one sees me.”

A person playing hide and go seek hides in the bushes and thinks, “Gee, I hope no one sees me.”

These two people desire the same outcome, so clearly their actions are similar and they should suffer the same fate: either both should be put in jail or both should go free.

There is nothing wrong with not being ready to have another child. Just like there’s nothing wrong with not hopping up and down with excitement before you go to Mass. Sometimes you’re tired or there may be something else you would rather do, but you go to Mass anyway. That doesn’t mean you think Mass is evil. Sometimes you’re not excited about the idea of having another kid. That doesn’t mean you think kids are evil.

If you have to be trying to get pregnant every time you have sex, then you shouldn’t have sex at all once the wife finds out she’s pregnant, because you obviously can’t get pregnant then. And you shouldn’t have sex after the woman goes through menapause, because she can’t get pregnant then. By your arguments against NFP, you should be practicing reverse-NFP: don’t have sex on your least fertile days because you probably won’t get pregnant. Only have sex when you have the absolute best chance of getting pregnant. Otherwise you’re having sex without being COMPLETELY open to life.

If God didn’t want us to swim, He shouldn’t have given us control over our lungs so we could hold our breath. If He didn’t want us to practice NFP, then He shouldn’t have created a regular system by which a woman would know when she’s more likely to get pregnant and less likely.

 

[1ke]

“NFP” is not a method of having sex without conception? Wow, that’s news to me! What is it then?

Charting one’s cycle is information only. It charts when the woman is fertile and when she is not.

Couples can use that information to decide whether or not to have intercourse on any given day.

They can choose to have intercourse on a fertile day or they can choose to have intercourse on an infertile day. They can choose to abstain on a fertile day. They can choose to abstain on an infertile day.

Any day they choose to have intercourse, that intercourse is both unitive and procreative. It is not altered in any way.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

A person murders someone and sneaks out of the house thinking, “Gee, I hope no one sees me.”

A person playing hide and go seek hides in the bushes and thinks, “Gee, I hope no one sees me.”

These two people desire the same outcome, so clearly their actions are similar and they should suffer the same fate: either both should be put in jail or both should go free.

This is some of the most muddled thinking I have ever read on CAF. I can only hope for your sake that it was a botched joke, or that you’re a very young person.

And for the record, I’m not arguing against NFP. I’m saying it would be nice if the church had a consistent statement of belief on contraception. Whether you agree or not, to the average person with an ounce of common sense, NFP is simply another form of birth control. Allowing this, but not allowing others weakens the authority, and internal consistency of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…NFP is simply another form of birth control. Allowing this, but not allowing others weakens the authority, and internal consistancy of Catholic doctrine.

The Church uses its own definition for “contraception” which includes un-natural, or outside interference with the conception process. That is why the Church allows NFP classifying it as outside the Church’s definition on contraception. Why the NFP crowd works so hard to disguise the church position is another issue.

Remember the Church also has a no sex outside of marriage, and monogamy only. Meaning no need to address other sex issues.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

The church should never have an opinion on a moral issue that comes across as, well, if you’re clever enough to come up with a way to do it without gadgets - then we’ll let it slide. It’s silly.

 

[1ke]

The church should never have an opinion on a moral issue

The Church doesn’t have opinions. The Church has doctrines.

that comes across as, well, if you’re clever enough to come up with a way to do it without gadgets - then we’ll let it slide. It’s silly.

Well, since this is not what the Church teaches, then we’re ok there.

 

[FLCathMom]

The Catholic Church has always taught that if a couple doesn’t want children, they must abstain from marital relations.

If you want to avoid having children, you must sacrifice the ability to have relations whenever you want.

Abstinence involves sacrifice, contraception does not.

I can see by your reasoning wondering why periodic abstinence should be allowed at all (meaning the couple should just abstain completely,) but not whether the Church should allow contraception.

 

[FLCathMom]

“The Catholic Church allows NFP because it has been deemed significantly unpleasant enough to act as a deterrent to a couple’s avoiding children for selfish reasons.”

Do you like that explanation better? I do.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…And for the record, I’m not arguing against NFP. I’m saying it would be nice if the church had a consistent statement of belief on contraception. Whether you agree or not, to the average person with an ounce of common sense, NFP is simply another form of birth control. Allowing this, but not allowing others weakens the authority, and internal consistency of Catholic doctrine.

I agree with you that it confuses people. The Church teachings get muddled here. Some promote NFP to avoid pregnancy for any reason, but the Church does **not **teach that it is always okay for married couples to avoid pregnancy. The Bible is clear that children are gifts from God. The Catechism 2367 says “Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperativg with the love of God the Creator…”

Avoiding children should not to be taken lightly by married couples. NFP to avoid pregancy is *tolerated *for “grave” or “just” reasons. I found this old quote from 1948 by Rev. Hugh Calkins, OSM, regarding the old rhythm method of trying to avoid pregnancy:

*The Church neither approves nor disapproves of the rhythm method as a system to be followed. The Church merely tolerates the use of the method. Toleration indicates reluctant permission. And the Church only tolerates this method when three definite factors are present. First, there is sufficient serious reason for a given couple to use this method, sufficiently serious enough to justify sidestepping the first purpose of marriage; second, both husband and wife are truly willing to follow the method–neither one can force the other to adopt this system; third, the use of this method must not cause mortal sins against chastity nor become a proximate occasion of such sins. The breakdown of any one of these three factors maked the use of rhythm sinfull. So the correct attitude is this: the use of rhythm is sometimes no sin, sometimes venial sin, sometimes mortal sin; So please stop saying: ‘Oh, it’s okay, the Church approves it.’" *

 

[CuriousInIL]

If God didn’t want us to swim, He shouldn’t have given us control over our lungs so we could hold our breath. If He didn’t want us to practice NFP, then He shouldn’t have created a regular system by which a woman would know when she’s more likely to get pregnant and less likely.

I don’t think this line of thinking works. It leads to:
If God didn’t want us to use artificial hormones to prevent pregnancy then he shouldn’t have made us smart enough to discover how to make them and how to use them as contaceptives.