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

[Paul1961]

Deborah,

Here’s the problem. You want a rational explanation for church’s opposition to condoms. You won’t find one that satisfies you. They state some reasons that seem very weakly supported. The church says condoms are wrong. End of story. You basic parental “because I said so.”

Now, with your own free will, you will decide whether to be obedient or not.

DW & I chose “not.” We have two beautiful children and will have no more. We are at peace with our decision. If we have to answer for that decision some day, so be it.

Paul

 

[PaulinVA]

Well, it is never a sin for a couple to decide not to have sex, is it? To put a different way, a couple is never required to have sex, are they?

So, NFP is just deciding to not have sex. There is no requirement to have sex.

However, if you do have sex and put something artificial in the way to thwart the purpose of the act, that is wrong. That is difference. With condoms, you are thwarting the purpose of sex by removing fertility. With abstinence, you are simply no doing something. That is neutral.

 

[Debora123]

Deborah,

Here’s the problem. You want a rational explanation for church’s opposition to condoms. You won’t find one that satisfies you. They state some reasons that seem very weakly supported. The church says condoms are wrong. End of story. You basic parental “because I said so.”

Now, with your own free will, you will decide whether to be obedient or not.

DW & I chose “not.” We have two beautiful children and will have no more. We are at peace with our decision. If we have to answer for that decision some day, so be it.

Paul

The thing is, every other teaching of the Catholic Church makes sense to me. I can rationalize and understand all of them, and I am content with all of them… the only exception being this one.

Like I said, I will still continue to use nfp… I spent $500 on an nfp machine about a year ago and I’ve been using it since I’ve been married. I will do what the Church says but I’m starting to feel like this is an issue that I’ll never fully understand.

 

[vera_dicere]

To be blantly honest, and perhaps a little unchartiable, I think the whole “I don’t understand the difference between NFP and artificial contracepion - the result is the same” speil is basically some people’s way of justifying to themselves the use of condoms and or any other artificial device they want to use.

Its a lot harder to use NFP, it takes discipline and practice and a faith in God and His Church, why bother with all that trouble when you break out a rubber when teh lust gets you and just tell yourself its the same thing.

The comparison someone made about stealing jewerlly for their mother’s christmas present and working hard to earn the money to pay for it is an apt one.

The ends don’t justify the means. The end being avoiding or spacing children. Same with research, say scientist A discovered a way to cure cancer and AIDs using adult stem cells, but scientist B discovered a way to cure cancer and AIDS using the pureed brains of new born babies that had to be fresh. We agree that the curing of AIDS and cancer is a good thing, even a great thing, however, one method is moral, the other is not, one method works with Natural Law the other does not. And chances are good, that there will be support for both methods.

Same result, different method. Its in the method that we find the morality. Either work with God and teh system He built into our bodies, ie. Natural Law, or work against God with a system man made to circumvent the system God built into our bodies.

This really isn’t all that hard to understand.

 

[Debora123]

To be blantly honest, and perhaps a little unchartiable, I think the whole “I don’t understand the difference between NFP and artificial contracepion - the result is the same” speil is basically some people’s way of justifying to themselves the use of condoms and or any other artificial device they want to use.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m sure everyone who has read my posts knows this isn’t true for me, because I use NFP. I think this makes it pretty evident that I’m genuinely trying to understand what the problem is, not trying to justify anything.

Its a lot harder to use NFP, it takes discipline and practice and a faith in God and His Church, why bother with all that trouble when you break out a rubber when teh lust gets you and just tell yourself its the same thing.

The comparison someone made about stealing jewerlly for their mother’s christmas present and working hard to earn the money to pay for it is an apt one.

I didn’t think it was that great of a comparison. She was pretty much saying that nfp is ok bc it involves sacrifice, but condoms don’t, so they’re not ok. This made no sense to me bc, 1. condoms DO involve sacrifice. Sex doesn’t feel as good with them on, but people sacrifice that for the sake of not getting pregnant when timing isn’t right. 2. She’s comparing stealing to wearing a condom, because wearing a condom is wrong, like stealing is wrong. But it still doesn’t help my understanding of WHY it’s wrong.

The ends don’t justify the means. The end being avoiding or spacing children. Same with research, say scientist A discovered a way to cure cancer and AIDs using adult stem cells, but scientist B discovered a way to cure cancer and AIDS using the pureed brains of new born babies that had to be fresh. We agree that the curing of AIDS and cancer is a good thing, even a great thing, however, one method is moral, the other is not, one method works with Natural Law the other does not. And chances are good, that there will be support for both methods.

Obviously I understand why killing a baby is bad. What I don’t understand is why wearing a condom is bad.

Same result, different method. Its in the method that we find the morality. Either work with God and teh system He built into our bodies, ie. Natural Law, or work against God with a system man made to circumvent the system God built into our bodies.

This really isn’t all that hard to understand.

Lol I must be an idiot then, because I still don’t get what the problem is.

 

[jilly4ski]

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

Marriage and sex are for a particular purpose as God designed them. Children and the unity of the couple. Each individual marital act must be ordered towards procreation. This does not mean that procreation must result or even be likely. (ETA: These purposes of marriage are intertwined and cannot be morally separated. Each marital act must be ordered toward both purposes. Thus you can’t use IVF and artificial insemination because it removes the unity part, and you can’t use ABC because it removes the procreation part).

Think of it this way. If a person had no knowledge of NFP or their fertility, the could decided when to have marital relations or not. Whether they intend to have children or not and whether they actually have children is irrelevant. The act itself is not changed no matter when the marital relations occur, whether they are fertile or infertile, this is what is meant when the Church says ordered towards procreation. An infertile couple is still engaging in sex that is ordered towards procreation even though they cannot conceive.

But when a condom, or any ABC, is introduced to the marital act, sex is no longer ordered towards procreation (Sperm is not entering the vagina, or in the case of hormones they interfere directly with the woman’s fertility). That same infertile couple would now be changing the purpose and meaning of the marital act if they used a condom, even thought they could not have children anyways. (I would also argue that a barrier method also interferes with unitive aspect of the marital act, though having no experience with condoms maybe I am not the best one to judge that).

Thus the nature of the marital act is changed when ABC including the condom is used, because the marital act is not happening as God intended it. It is not about avoiding children per se, as the Church recognizes the regulation of children to be necessary sometimes. But we cannot change the marital act to achieve this end (or any end for that matter).

I like the theft analogy, we can have good intentions and the same outcome, but the means used are not the same, and the actions cannot be viewed as morally the same.

 

[spunjalebi]

I think I get where Deborah is coming from because I often wonder about this myself. Many arguments for ABC usually state that since you are withholding fertility with ABC and NFP, what is the difference, truly?

I have had many Protestants tell me that the Bible says it’s wrong for a married couple to withhold sexual activity from each other, even if it’s *mutual,*unless it’s just for prayers and fasting, but the Catholic Church teaches withholding outside of prayers and fasting. How do I explain that?

 

[Vico]

Debora123,

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops published a document on marriage.

usccb.org/loveandlife/MarriageFINAL.pdf

In there is it stated that the proper openess to procreation involves acknowledging that we are not the master of the sources of life. (As taught by Pope Paul VI.)

“Pope Paul VI warns against treating the sexual faculties as simply one more technology to control: to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source.”
Therefore we should not attempt to have mastery over procreation. So we exclude all contraceptive technologies, for example, hormones (e.g., estrogen and/or progestin), sterilization, poisons, and barriers. This is an objective rather than subjective rule, accepting the human reproductive organism without modifying it physically.

 

[Abu]

Debora123
But what is it about this barrier that makes it wrong is what I can’t seem to understand

God has created us to increase and multiply — through marriage, the sacrament of the New Law.
God has created the woman with fertile/infertile periods, and has NOT commanded that only the fertile periods be used in marriage.

God has given His Church His authority to teach infallibly on faith and morals. His Church teaches infallibly that the primary ends of marriage are procreative and unitive. She teaches that the marital act must always be open to procreation, unless the married couple has serious reasons for spacing or avoiding procreation. This may be achieved virtuously through the use of the infertile periods.

Totally different is the use of the marital act in which a barrier (condom) is placed deliberately by God’s creature to thwart the primary end of procreation ordained by Him.

Clear cut:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco (EWTN) on July 24, 2007:
“There can be no conflict between a well formed and correctly informed conscience and the Church’s Magisterium. A person who does not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception removes him or herself from communion with the Church.”

 

[Paul1961]

Here’s where the problem starts…

The leap the church makes from “Be fruitful and multiply” to “Each individual marital act must be ordered towards procreation.”

There’s a much greater biblical basis for God commanding us to commit total genocide against our enemies than anything remotely addressing contraception.

 

[marchoi]

Deborah,

Here’s the problem. You want a rational explanation for church’s opposition to condoms. You won’t find one that satisfies you. They state some reasons that seem very weakly supported. The church says condoms are wrong. End of story. You basic parental “because I said so.”

Now, with your own free will, you will decide whether to be obedient or not.

DW & I chose “not.” We have two beautiful children and will have no more. We are at peace with our decision. If we have to answer for that decision some day, so be it.

Paul

Nope. There is a rational explanation, which is what we’re trying to clarify here in this thread. It’s not simply a matter of obedience; it’s about a fuller understanding of human sexuality and the beauty of marriage. If you don’t find a rational explanation that satisfies you, it’s most likely because you don’t want to be wrong.

Even if it is simply a matter of obedience, I don’t quite understand how you can choose to be disobedient and be “at peace”; if you’re professing to believe the Catholic faith, you have to be obedient to the Catholic teachings… You may be “at peace” with your decision, but that has meaning only if you have properly formed your conscience in accord with what the Church teaches as truth.

 

[marchoi]

I think I get where Deborah is coming from because I often wonder about this myself. Many arguments for ABC usually state that since you are withholding fertility with ABC and NFP, what is the difference, truly?

With NFP, you’re not withholding fertility per se but rather withholding sexual activity - the fertility is still very much present. With ABC, you are indeed withholding fertility - you’ve totally suppressed that element. The question isn’t whether you’re somehow “playing the system to not get pregnant” - which I suppose is a valid criticism of NFP. The question is rather the fertility is still tied to the sexual activity. With NFP, fertility is tied to sexual activity, which is why couples who are trying to delay pregnancy abstain from sexual activity. With ABC, fertility has been divorced from sexual activity, which is why couples still engage in sexual activity when the woman should be fertile. It’s not the surface-level “can-I-get-pregnant” question but rather the deeper connection between the sexual activity and fertility.

I have had many Protestants tell me that the Bible says it’s wrong for a married couple to withhold sexual activity from each other, even if it’s *mutual,*unless it’s just for prayers and fasting, but the Catholic Church teaches withholding outside of prayers and fasting. How do I explain that?

I presume they refer to 1 Cor 7:2-5. They have a valid point - St. Paul does say that husband and wife shouldn’t refrain from sexual activity unless for prayer. But in the very next verse (1 Cor 7:6) St. Paul clarifies that he says this not as a command but “as a concession” or “indulgence” (depending on translation). You have to take it in context. St. Paul begins that chapter by saying that it is good for man not to touch woman (be married) unless he is likely to fall into the sin of fornication. In that case he ought to marry. So if your purpose in marrying is to avoid the sin of fornication or lust or adultery, then St. Paul concedes that it is not good for you to refrain from sexual activity, lest Satan “tempt you through your lack of self-control” or “tempt you for your incontinency.” So hopefully having this greater context helps explain the whole thing a bit…

 

[Observer3]

Deborah,

Here’s the problem. You want a rational explanation for church’s opposition to condoms. You won’t find one that satisfies you. They state some reasons that seem very weakly supported. The church says condoms are wrong. End of story. You basic parental “because I said so.”

Now, with your own free will, you will decide whether to be obedient or not.

DW & I chose “not.” We have two beautiful children and will have no more. We are at peace with our decision. If we have to answer for that decision some day, so be it.

Paul

Amen.

Good for you Paul. It’s refreshing to see someone who challenges some of the churches rules.

 

[Debora123]

So basically, from what I’ve always understood, and from what I understand most of you to be saying, the only really basic thing that separates the 2 and makes one wrong and one right, is the fact that one is a natural method, while the other is artificial. And the natural method is ok because it works with the body and with God’s plan, while the artificial method is wrong because… well, because it’s artificial and man made, not “God made,” therefore it doesn’t work with God’s plan… or something?

Ok, so I understand that. But if that were true, then wouldn’t it also be true that EVERYTHING artificial was wrong? Or everything that was man made was wrong? Of course we all know that’s not the case, considering this is the 21st century and if EVERYTHING wasn’t artificial, we’d still be walking around half naked wearing fig leaves and living in straw huts. So how come the notion that something artificial is wrong only applies to avoiding pregnancy?

Maybe I’ll never find logic in this particular Church teaching, but nonetheless, thank you all for your responses and for taking the time to try to help me out. It is appreciated.

 

[SummerSmiles]

So basically, from what I’ve always understood, and from what I understand most of you to be saying, the only really basic thing that separates the 2 and makes one wrong and one right, is the fact that one is a natural method, while the other is artificial. And the natural method is ok because it works with the body and with God’s plan, while the artificial method is wrong because… well, because it’s artificial and man made, not “God made,” therefore it doesn’t work with God’s plan… or something?

Not exactly… after all, withdrawal is still “natural” but it’s not moral because it removes fertility from the marital act. The removal/alteration of a couple’s fertility is what makes using condoms immoral. The husband cannot give himself fully and completely to his bride, so she can not fully accept that gift. During sex, both parties must be able to fully give of themselves and fully accept their partner, this must include their fertility. I hope that helps.

 

[SonCatcher]

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

I don’t necessarily expect you to understand me, but do suggest you take time to pray. Ask God to help you understand why the Church teaches what it does. Read scripture and the writings of saints.

You accept the practice of NFP and authority of the Church but lack some formation in this area (I admit to you that I lack proper formation in others - I won’t name them here since they are not directly connected to this thread).

Until such time as you do understand, can I ask a favor? While this forum is an excellent place to debate matters of faith we have difficulty with, the World would seize on any opportunity to cause division in the Church. If someone asks you to defend NFP, please send them here instead of trying to answer them yourself.

 

[SummerSmiles]

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

I think that when we talk about contraception, we should talk about what message or attitude comes along with it. Contraception rejects fertility and children. Essentially, it is saying that we want to be able to have sex, but we don’t want to deal with the responsibility of children. NFP accepts fertility and children, even if we’re using it to avoid pregnancy. It says something more along the lines of, “I don’t feel ready to take on the responsibility of another child right now, but if you (God) decide to bless us with one, we will accept that child.”

 

[Debora123]

Until such time as you do understand, can I ask a favor? While this forum is an excellent place to debate matters of faith we have difficulty with, the World would seize on any opportunity to cause division in the Church. If someone asks you to defend NFP, please send them here instead of trying to answer them yourself.

Yes of course. I don’t understand it myself, so I wouldn’t try to explain it to someone else.

 

[SonCatcher]

Now, with your own free will, you will decide whether to be obedient or not.

DW & I chose “not.” We have two beautiful children and will have no more. We are at peace with our decision. If we have to answer for that decision some day, so be it.

Paul

Making your decision is one thing. Advocating for it is another. It is scandal to cause another to sin.

 

[SonCatcher]

Yes of course. I don’t understand it myself, so I wouldn’t try to explain it to someone else.

Thanks.

I’ll pray for you and your family.