condoms vs nfp. what's really the dif??

[Debora123]

So I completely understand why using hormonal birth control is wrong. It’s harmful to the woman and ends an early pregnancy if one accidentally occurs. But considering condoms don’t have any harmful side effects, I don’t understand what it is about condoms that makes using them so wrong.

Don’t get me wrong, I follow all the rules and use NFP in my marriage and everything. But quite honestly, I don’t understand why using a condom is wrong. Both NFP and condoms are methods used to avoid pregnancy. They have the same exact outcome. They are both used for the same exact purpose. So why are condoms SO wrong wrong wrong, and yet NFP is completely ok? I just don’t get it.

I’ve read many books/articles on “why the Church is against contraception,” but honestly, none of them have ever made sense to me.

My mother is 51 years old. She has not yet reached menopause. She has had 4 children in her life. She is at an age where having another child would be dangerous - for herself and the child. She has tried NFP in the past, and that is what got her pregnant with my little brother the last time. Not to mention her cycles are very irregular, making NFP extremely unreliable for her (my lil bro being the evidence). Her priest/mentor told her that in her case, it was ok to use condoms. And so that’s what her and my father have been using for the past few years.

The whole condom thing is very strange to me. Not only does it not make sense for them to be wrong, but now we’ve also got even priests saying they’re ok?? And yet the CC STILL says they’re wrong? Can someone please explain this to me??

 

[choose_to_love]

1. The priest gave the wrong advice.
2. Look up the posting history of the poster “1ke”. You will find that she has many times clearly and succinctly stated the Church’s understanding of our sexuality and how condoms are a grave violation of the marital covenant, probably better than I ever will. Manualman is another good source on this site, among many others.
3. If you haven’t read Christopher West, please consider reading his Good News about Sex & Marriage, or, looking into Theology of the Body books, either interpretations like West’s or the source material.
4. The ends do not justify the means. Birth regulation, as set forth in Humanae Vitae, can be part of responsible parenthood, for a serious reason. It is the means of doing so which are at issue.
5. We are created, male and female, in the image and likeness of God. God has imprinted in us a clue about his trinitarian nature. The Father gives Himself eternally to the Son, freely, fully, fatihfully, and fruitfully. The Son receives the love of the Father and reciprocates that love, which is so real it is another Person, the Holy Spirit.

Our spousal lovemaking should reflect that reality of trinitarian love. Am I giving myself fully to my bride if I hold back my fertility? Fruitfully? What if Christ, the Bridegroom, did not love us, the Church (the Bride), totally, and held back some part of Himself on the Cross?

It is not “rules” to follow, it is the truth of who and what we are as children and creations of God.

Sorry this ended up a little disjointed but I was rushing.

 

[marchoi]

The two-minute answer:

NFP uses natural, God-given, God-intended mechanisms of the woman’s fertility cycle to regulate the possibility of pregnancy. NFP does not reject the gift of fertility by wholly removing it from the picture, but rather learns to accept the conjugal act in its entirety - including the possibility of pregnancy.

Condoms and other forms of artificial birth control (which, as Fulton Sheen wrote, involves neither birth nor control) rejects the God-given gift of fertility. It seeks to separate the conjugal act from its procreative aspect, thereby seriously distorting the nature of the conjugal act.

The priest was wrong to have OKed birth control in your mother’s situation. The only case where birth control *might *be permissible is to regulate the menstrual cycle of a woman who is not sexually active at all while she is using the birth control. My little sister was born when my mother was 46. My mother ended up with complications during childbirth and ended up in a coma for two days, but that sacrifice only deepened my mother’s love for my little sister. That link between sacrifice and love is exactly what artificial birth control tries to destroy, and that’s what makes it immoral.

 

[Debora123]

1. The priest gave the wrong advice.
2. Look up the posting history of the poster “1ke”. You will find that she has many times clearly and succinctly stated the Church’s understanding of our sexuality and how condoms are a grave violation of the marital covenant, probably better than I ever will. Manualman is another good source on this site, among many others.
3. If you haven’t read Christopher West, please consider reading his Good News about Sex & Marriage, or, looking into Theology of the Body books, either interpretations like West’s or the source material.
4. The ends do not justify the means. Birth regulation, as set forth in Humanae Vitae, can be part of responsible parenthood, for a serious reason. It is the means of doing so which are at issue.
5. We are created, male and female, in the image and likeness of God. God has imprinted in us a clue about his trinitarian nature. The Father gives Himself eternally to the Son, freely, fully, fatihfully, and fruitfully. The Son receives the love of the Father and reciprocates that love, which is so real it is another Person, the Holy Spirit.

Our spousal lovemaking should reflect that reality of trinitarian love. Am I giving myself fully to my bride if I hold back my fertility? Fruitfully? What if Christ, the Bridegroom, did not love us, the Church (the Bride), totally, and held back some part of Himself on the Cross?

It is not “rules” to follow, it is the truth of who and what we are as children and creations of God.

Sorry this ended up a little disjointed but I was rushing.

I understand a lot of you are going to say my mother’s priest was wrong. I’ve read Christopher West. I’ve even heard him speak. Condom thing still makes no sense to me.

When we use NFP we ARE holding back our fertility. We are doing so by purposely avoiding sex on the days we know we are fertile, and only having sex on the days we know we’re not. So that still makes no sense to me.

I’ll look at some of 1ke’s posts and see if anything clears up for me. Thanks.

 

[SonCatcher]

quoting myself from another thread here:

The intentions of NFP and ABC (e.g. condoms) are not the same at all.

NFP selflessly declines the marital embrace for a time out of deference to the real concerns of the couple.

ABC selfishly seeks self-gratification while thwarting God’s creative work.

In regard to one item of the OP’s laundry list: I’m surprised in this day, people still consider a certain “age” to be “dangerous” for pregnancy. Medical science has advanced significantly and we regularly hear of older women successfully bearing children. From Scripture, we should remember, too, the examples of Sarah and Elizabeth. They were older women who successfully bore children.

Certainly age is a concern and there are some truly dangerous conditions for pregnancy. However, age itself is no longer a dangerous condition.

 

[Debora123]

The two-minute answer:

NFP uses natural, God-given, God-intended mechanisms of the woman’s fertility cycle to regulate the possibility of pregnancy. NFP does not reject the gift of fertility by wholly removing it from the picture, but rather learns to accept the conjugal act in its entirety - including the possibility of pregnancy.

But isn’t it considered “rejecting the gift of fertility” if you purposely use it to avoid pregnancy by only having sex on infertile days? Condoms do the exact same thing - they regulate the possibility of pregnancy.

Condoms and other forms of artificial birth control (which, as Fulton Sheen wrote, involves neither birth nor control) rejects the God-given gift of fertility. It seeks to separate the conjugal act from its procreative aspect, thereby seriously distorting the nature of the conjugal act.

“It seeks to separate the conjugal act from its procreative aspect.” Isn’t this just afancy way of saying - it prevents pregnancy? If so, then NFP prevents pregnancy as well, so what’s the difference?

The priest was wrong to have OKed birth control in your mother’s situation. The only case where birth control *might *be permissible is to regulate the menstrual cycle of a woman who is not sexually active at all while she is using the birth control. My little sister was born when my mother was 46. My mother ended up with complications during childbirth and ended up in a coma for two days, but that sacrifice only deepened my mother’s love for my little sister. That link between sacrifice and love is exactly what artificial birth control tries to destroy, and that’s what makes it immoral.

But if she had used NFP to not get pregnant, she wouldn’t have gotten pregnant if it had worked in the way she wanted it to. Both condoms and NFP work to achieve the same outcome, so why is it that one of them “tries to destroy the link between sacrifice and love” and the other does not?

I don’t see how condoms “try to destroy the link between sacrifice and love.” To my knowledge all they do is try to avoid pregnancy - just like nfp.

 

[Debora123]

*"The intentions of NFP and ABC (e.g. condoms) are not the same at all.

NFP selflessly declines the marital embrace for a time out of deference to the real concerns of the couple.

ABC selfishly seeks self-gratification while thwarting God’s creative work."*

But the intentions ARE the same - to avoid pregnancy. My parents aren’t using a condom bc they are trying to be selfish, or because they don’t love each other. They are using a condom to avoid pregnancy. Period. Intentions are the same.

Why is using a condom selfish while using NFP is not? Is it because of the “time out?” If that’s the case then what if a couple abstained from sex on the fertile days and then had sex on the infertile days with a condom on, just to make sure? The “time out” is still in there, so does that mean it would be ok?

 

[jilly4ski]

I am confused. You use NFP and don’t see the difference between abstaining from sex and using using a condom whenever you want to engage in that behavior?

I think this is where most of the confusion lies. If spouses agree not to engage in the marital act, yes they are “withholding” their fertility. But that is ok because they are also “withholding” their bodies and sex. (By the way, the spouses must agree and there must be a serious/grave/just reason to use NFP). But with condoms the couple is taking fertility out of the picture all together. So they are withholding their fertility but not everything else that is suppose to come with that. (Or the opposite, when a couple has sex they must give everything, including their fertility and infertility). With NFP the couple is not changing the marital act. it is the same whether infertile or fertile.

btw, NFP looks at fertile signs of the woman, and being irregular does not affect that.

 

[jilly4ski]

"
Why is using a condom selfish while using NFP is not? Is it because of the “time out?” If that’s the case then what if a couple abstained from sex on the fertile days and then had sex on the infertile days with a condom on, just to make sure? The “time out” is still in there, so does that mean it would be ok?

No, because one is changing the nature of the marital act, when a barrier (or other ABC) is used.

 

[marchoi]

Both condoms and NFP work to achieve the same outcome, so why is it that one of them “tries to destroy the link between sacrifice and love” and the other does not?

I love my mother dearly. So for her birthday, I decide to get her some really nice jewelry. There are two ways I can do this: 1) I put in a good day’s work, take the paycheck and buy the jewelry; or 2) I can go to the store and use the “five-finger discount” to steal the jewelry. Same outcome: my mom gets some jewelry for her birthday present. In the first case the outcome is a result of my sacrifice for love of my mom. In the second case, however, there is no sacrifice involved; I have destroyed the link between sacrifice and love.

Obviously this isn’t to compare birth control to stealing, but rather to show how two actions can have the same outcome - and same intention, even, of getting my mom a present (or preventing pregnancy, in the case of birth control) - while one maintains the link between love and sacrifice while the other does not.

“It seeks to separate the conjugal act from its procreative aspect.” Isn’t this just afancy way of saying - it prevents pregnancy? If so, then NFP prevents pregnancy as well, so what’s the difference?

No, it’s not just a fancy way of saying “it prevents pregnancy” - we’re looking much deeper than the obvious effect. When using NFP, the procreative aspect of the conjugal act is still very much there, it just happens to not be as active. When using a condom, there is zero element of the procreative aspect - it’s not even in the picture. Using a condom purposely shuts out that part of “conjugal love”.

When we use NFP we ARE holding back our fertility. We are doing so by purposely avoiding sex on the days we know we are fertile, and only having sex on the days we know we’re not.

When using NFP, you do not hold back fertility; you learn to work with your fertility. Condoms and artificial birth control involve wholesale rejection of fertility. That’s another element of it: you can use NFP to determine when you are fertile, so that you can achieve pregnancy, whereas artificial birth control does not contribute at all to determining when you are fertile. So that’s one clear evidence that NFP does not merely “hold back fertility” but rather works with fertility, while artificial birth control truly destroys fertility.

 

[Observer3]

There isn’t a difference in terms of morality. They both have the same intention. Both try to avoid pregnancy. And spare me the lectures on how NFP is used to “space” children. That’s still a way of avoiding pregnancy. Even the Pope has recognized that condoms are ok (this isn’t the first Pope to say this either).

The only real difference is that condoms are more reliable in preventing unwanted pregnancy. Still not super reliable though.

 

[SonCatcher]

Debora123,

Do you honestly see NFP as being some kind of “church-approved contraception”?

It is not. The Church warns against not only contraception but the attitudes of contraception.

In practicing NFP, we do not take power over fertility. Rather, we place ourselves at the service of that part of God’s creative power that He has willed into our humanity. Contraception attempts to take power over fertility.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I’ve always understood that NFP is not an alternative to ABC, it is an alternative to total abstinence, which has always been licit as long as both spouses are in agreement about it. NFP allows the couple to still have some degree of sexual relations, yet they are still sacrificing the marital embrace more than they would if they used ABC. Couples who use NFP accept a woman’s fertility as God designed it, with inherent cycles of fertility and infertility. They also don’t change the nature of the sexual act itself.

So I admit I don’t understand why people don’t get the difference between ABC and NFP, I’ve never had this problem myself.

However, I think that perhaps some people get confused because many ABC advocates assume that the only reason the Church allows NFP is because it doesn’t work. Also, many NFP advocates emphasize secular arguments, touting the effectiveness of NFP and often focusing on how horrible the birth control pill is. I’ve seen that happen on many CAF discussions, people will point out that the Pill can cause an early abortion, how the Pill has been linked to increased risk of blood clots, breast cancer, etc. I guess this is understandable if the main focus is to persuade a particular individual not to commit a sin, much like it’s justified to tell a woman considering abortion about the risks of the procedure, even though the risks are irrelevant when it comes to the moral issues.

Also, to hear some people you’d think the only methods of birth control available were the Pill or condoms. Or the IUD. Yet, I’ve noticed little is said about spermicides, diaphragms, and other less popular ABC methods. I recall one poster here discussing how she had started to use ABC and the usual anti-Pill arguments were brought up by a number of posters…who later found out that the woman was actually using a diaphragm.

 

[SonCatcher]

I’ve always understood that NFP is not an alternative to ABC, it is an alternative to total abstinence, which has always been licit as long as both spouses are in agreement about it.

Quite correct. It’s easy to overlook that even from the pro-NFP side.

 

[mark_a]

Even the Pope has recognized that condoms are ok (this isn’t the first Pope to say this either).

You are highly misinformed. You really should check Catholic sources before swallowing a media headline hook, line, and sinker.

 

[mark_a]

I’ve always understood that NFP is not an alternative to ABC, it is an alternative to total abstinence, which has always been licit as long as both spouses are in agreement about it. NFP allows the couple to still have some degree of sexual relations, yet they are still sacrificing the marital embrace more than they would if they used ABC. Couples who use NFP accept a woman’s fertility as God designed it, with inherent cycles of fertility and infertility. They also don’t change the nature of the sexual act itself.

So I admit I don’t understand why people don’t get the difference between ABC and NFP, I’ve never had this problem myself.

However, I think that perhaps some people get confused because many ABC advocates assume that the only reason the Church allows NFP is because it doesn’t work. Also, many NFP advocates emphasize secular arguments, touting the effectiveness of NFP and often focusing on how horrible the birth control pill is. I’ve seen that happen on many CAF discussions, people will point out that the Pill can cause an early abortion, how the Pill has been linked to increased risk of blood clots, breast cancer, etc. I guess this is understandable if the main focus is to persuade a particular individual not to commit a sin, much like it’s justified to tell a woman considering abortion about the risks of the procedure, even though the risks are irrelevant when it comes to the moral issues.

Also, to hear some people you’d think the only methods of birth control available were the Pill or condoms. Or the IUD. Yet, I’ve noticed little is said about spermicides, diaphragms, and other less popular ABC methods. I recall one poster here discussing how she had started to use ABC and the usual anti-Pill arguments were brought up by a number of posters…who later found out that the woman was actually using a diaphragm.

Not to mention that nfp can be used to get pregnant. NFP researchers have even learned how to stack the conception deck to favor girl babies or boy babies.

 

[Debora123]

I am confused. You use NFP and don’t see the difference between abstaining from sex and using using a condom whenever you want to engage in that behavior?

I think this is where most of the confusion lies. If spouses agree not to engage in the marital act, yes they are “withholding” their fertility. But that is ok because they are also “withholding” their bodies and sex. (By the way, the spouses must agree and there must be a serious/grave/just reason to use NFP). But with condoms the couple is taking fertility out of the picture all together. So they are withholding their fertility but not everything else that is suppose to come with that. (Or the opposite, when a couple has sex they must give everything, including their fertility and infertility). With NFP the couple is not changing the marital act. it is the same whether infertile or fertile.

btw, NFP looks at fertile signs of the woman, and being irregular does not affect that.

Well yes, there’s that difference - for nfp you have to abstain for about a week per month. So is the “withholding” aspect of nfp that makes it ok, while condoms are not? In that case, what if a couple used nfp AND condoms? What if they abstained during the fertile days, but then had condom sex during the infertile days, just in case?

If I understand correctly, having irregular cycles makes it harder to figure out whether you are or are not fertile, making nfp less reliable.

 

[Debora123]

No, because one is changing the nature of the marital act, when a barrier (or other ABC) is used.

But what is it about this barrier that makes it wrong is what I can’t seem to understand.

 

[Debora123]

I love my mother dearly. So for her birthday, I decide to get her some really nice jewelry. There are two ways I can do this: 1) I put in a good day’s work, take the paycheck and buy the jewelry; or 2) I can go to the store and use the “five-finger discount” to steal the jewelry. Same outcome: my mom gets some jewelry for her birthday present. In the first case the outcome is a result of my sacrifice for love of my mom. In the second case, however, there is no sacrifice involved; I have destroyed the link between sacrifice and love.

I understand the point you’re trying to make, but I don’t think it applies, because there is sacrifice involved in using a condom. The sacrifice is that wearing a condom supposedly makes sex not feel as good for both parties.

No, it’s not just a fancy way of saying “it prevents pregnancy” - we’re looking much deeper than the obvious effect. When using NFP, the procreative aspect of the conjugal act is still very much there, it just happens to not be as active. When using a condom, there is zero element of the procreative aspect - it’s not even in the picture. Using a condom purposely shuts out that part of “conjugal love”.

Well this isn’t necessarily true, because if done correctly, nfp is supposed to have a 2% failure rate, while condoms are supposed to have a 7% failure rate. So technically there’s a higher chance of getting pregnant by using a condom vs using nfp. At any rate, I don’t see why this would really apply, because whether or not there’s a failure rate, the intentions are both the same. The couple doesn’t intend on getting pregnant, and they are trying to avoid it. If a pregnancy DOES happen, it would be an accident, it wouldn’t be bc they purposely let it happen.

When using NFP, you do not hold back fertility; you learn to work with your fertility. Condoms and artificial birth control involve wholesale rejection of fertility. That’s another element of it: you can use NFP to determine when you are fertile, so that you can achieve pregnancy, whereas artificial birth control does not contribute at all to determining when you are fertile. So that’s one clear evidence that NFP does not merely “hold back fertility” but rather works with fertility, while artificial birth control truly destroys fertility.

Right, but we are talking about using NFP for avoiding pregnancy. And with a condom, it’s not like it’s something that stays on you and keeps you from getting pregnant in the future. All you have to do is not wear it and have sex while you’re fertile.

 

[Debora123]

Debora123,

Do you honestly see NFP as being some kind of “church-approved contraception”?

It is not. The Church warns against not only contraception but the attitudes of contraception.

In practicing NFP, we do not take power over fertility. Rather, we place ourselves at the service of that part of God’s creative power that He has willed into our humanity. Contraception attempts to take power over fertility.

If you’re using NFP to keep from getting pregnant, then yeah, it’s a contraception. I don’t understand what you mean??