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

[Observer3]

There has never been one good argument for how NFP is morally different. Both ABC and NFP have the same intention - to prevent or postpone pregnancy. Both “get in the way” of God’s plan, if you believe in that. To say that NFP doesn’t get in the way as much, could be plausible, but it still gets in the way by letting sex happen during times it’s less likely to create pregnancy. Condoms don’t prevent God completely… one can still get pregnant using condoms, so the argument that they stop God’s will is weak.

t’s not very reliable for dozens of reasons, and should not be used exclusively if you’re serious about avoiding pregnancy (see the other person’s thread about how NFP failed them twice already). NFP advocates will claim “they didn’t do it right,” but we know this isn’t always true. I’ve known many Catholics who used this method very carefully that had it fail within months.

To argue that something is wrong because its artificial is ridiculous. Should we not sleep in beds because they weren’t created by nature? Should diabetics stop taking medication because it’s unnatural? One will eventually conclude that these technologies have been a blessing.

Even the Pope has said that condoms are ok in certain circumstances. Anyone on this forum would rather their son or daughter use a condom rather than get HIV. If they had only those two choice, they would choose the condom. Context is everything, life has many colors and isn’t in black and white.

 

[jilly4ski]

There has never been one good argument for how NFP is morally different. Both ABC and NFP have the same intention - to prevent or postpone pregnancy. Both “get in the way” of God’s plan, if you believe in that. To say that NFP doesn’t get in the way as much, could be plausible, but it still gets in the way by letting sex happen during times it’s less likely to create pregnancy. Condoms don’t prevent God completely… one can still get pregnant using condoms, so the argument that they stop God’s will is weak.

As many people have pointed out there is more to morality than intentions. There are intentions, means, and outcome/goal. Yes, a couple using NFP and condoms might have the same intention of avoiding children, there are times when couples for serious/grave/just reasons might need to postpone children, nobody is debating this. The outcome may also be the same, the couple might be successful in avoiding children with NFP and a condom or not, if they abandon the NFP method or the condom breaks etc. The difference here is the means used to achieve their goal. Sex is linked to procreation, we cannot deny this, this is how God designed it.

So if we need to avoid children there is only one moral way to do this. Not have sex. We could pick total abstinence and spend our days in prayer, or we could use periodic abstinence (and still spend our days in prayer). We cannot change God’s purpose for sex, but having sex when we are not fertile is not changing God’s purpose, because that is the way God made us.

It is not about things being artificial, but rather God’s purpose for us and our bodies. Put it this way, our hearts circulate blood around our bodies, this is the way God designed our hearts. But if someones heart stops functioning the way it is supposed to, we use artificial means to keep that persons heart pumping. The heart is no longer fulfilling the purpose that God designed for it, the pacemaker is helping the heart fulfill its function. Now compare this to contraceptives, which purposefully shut down and inhibit the workings of our fertility.

 

[Debora123]

There has never been one good argument for how NFP is morally different. Both ABC and NFP have the same intention - to prevent or postpone pregnancy. Both “get in the way” of God’s plan, if you believe in that. To say that NFP doesn’t get in the way as much, could be plausible, but it still gets in the way by letting sex happen during times it’s less likely to create pregnancy. Condoms don’t prevent God completely… one can still get pregnant using condoms, so the argument that they stop God’s will is weak.

t’s not very reliable for dozens of reasons, and should not be used exclusively if you’re serious about avoiding pregnancy (see the other person’s thread about how NFP failed them twice already). NFP advocates will claim “they didn’t do it right,” but we know this isn’t always true. I’ve known many Catholics who used this method very carefully that had it fail within months.

To argue that something is wrong because its artificial is ridiculous. Should we not sleep in beds because they weren’t created by nature? Should diabetics stop taking medication because it’s unnatural? One will eventually conclude that these technologies have been a blessing.

Even the Pope has said that condoms are ok in certain circumstances. Anyone on this forum would rather their son or daughter use a condom rather than get HIV. If they had only those two choice, they would choose the condom. Context is everything, life has many colors and isn’t in black and white.

My thoughts exactly on all of this. However, as a Catholic, I’d like to be able to trust the Church. I still advocate nfp and I still refuse to use condoms, I just wish I could know why it needs to be this way. It would make it a lot easier to explain it to my non catholic friends

 

[Debora123]

It is not about things being artificial, but rather God’s purpose for us and our bodies. Put it this way, our hearts circulate blood around our bodies, this is the way God designed our hearts. But if someones heart stops functioning the way it is supposed to, we use artificial means to keep that persons heart pumping. The heart is no longer fulfilling the purpose that God designed for it, the pacemaker is helping the heart fulfill its function. Now compare this to contraceptives, which purposefully shut down and inhibit the workings of our fertility.

So is it also wrong to keep people alive by artificial means such as a pacemaker? I don’t think this is true, or at least, I’ve never been taught that it is. But if it is, it would at least make the contraception issue a little bit more logical.

 

[Momofmyangels]

So is it also wrong to keep people alive by artificial means such as a pacemaker? I don’t think this is true, or at least, I’ve never been taught that it is. But if it is, it would at least make the contraception issue a little bit more logical.

You missed jilly4ski’s point. It has nothing to do with being artificial, and everything to do with God’s plan for us. God creates new life through us. Each marital act must be open to God’s plan for procreation, condoms reject that plan, reject procreation and thus reject God. A pacemaker, on the other hand rejects nothing. It works with God’s plan for the heart…to keep it beating.

 

[jilly4ski]

You missed jilly4ski’s point. It has nothing to do with being artificial, and everything to do with God’s plan for us. God creates new life through us. Each marital act must be open to God’s plan for procreation, condoms reject that plan, reject procreation and thus reject God. A pacemaker, on the other hand rejects nothing. It works with God’s plan for the heart…to keep it beating.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make.

Debora, I was making the opposite point. A pacemaker, though artificial is fine, not because it is natural or artificial, but because it works with our bodies to fulfill the purpose of the heart, where contraception works against our bodies and God’s plan.

 

[Spencerian]

So is it also wrong to keep people alive by artificial means such as a pacemaker? I don’t think this is true, or at least, I’ve never been taught that it is. But if it is, it would at least make the contraception issue a little bit more logical.

Hi, there. Let me take a crack at helping you.

As you know better than I, a woman’s body has a finite window of fertility in a given menstrual cycle. NFP, of course, aids a couple space out pregnancies through the infertile parts of this natural cycle. Likewise, NFP can help in conceiving since the couple will know to the day when fertility is highest.

NFP differs from condoms or other birth control because artificial means such as these alter or block the natural processes defined by God. NFP doesn’t block or alter anything God gave us. NFP users, as you know, simply work **within **the natural cycles, not attempting to put blocks on the cycles or suspend them.

Those with rather Puritanical natures who feel that sex is strictly for having kids should re-read the Catechism, where it states that marital relations are for **both **intimacy and child-bearing–but married Catholics aren’t necessarily called to be chaste when not intending to make a baby. Sex was meant by God to be pleasurable to a couple and foster their closeness.

As others have stated, any system can be abused, and NFP is no exception. For a couple to continually use NFP to avoid pregnancy when no financial or medical impediment exists is morally questionable.

Artificial means to *support *life, such as pacemakers, come under different reasons involving improving the quality of life, and are morally justifiable. Often in medical issues in quality-of-life artificial support, the question involves the **removal **of said tools (such as life support or food) by loved ones because supporting someone ill has become “inconvenient,” for instance. I don’t want to divert the thread from your original question, but that’s one answer to contemplate.

 

[Debora123]

You missed jilly4ski’s point. It has nothing to do with being artificial, and everything to do with God’s plan for us. God creates new life through us. Each marital act must be open to God’s plan for procreation, condoms reject that plan, reject procreation and thus reject God. A pacemaker, on the other hand rejects nothing. It works with God’s plan for the heart…to keep it beating.

Gotcha. I read it wrong

 

[HolyCow21]

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make.

Debora, I was making the opposite point. A pacemaker, though artificial is fine, not because it is natural or artificial, but because it works with our bodies to fulfill the purpose of the heart, where contraception works against our bodies and God’s plan.

I read through the whole thread here and have a few comments. I’ll start with this one. How do we know that it wasn’t God’s plan for that person’s heart to stop beating at that time so they can move on to their life after this life? That would mean the artificial device in that person’s body working against God’s plan?

Of course if God wanted to He could take anybody at any time, or cause somebody to become pregnant at any time regardless of what they do to prevent it. However, it seems that we are continuously able to do things to prevent God’s plan from being fully fulfilled?

 

[HolyCow21]

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.”

Sadly, like Deborah, I’d like to better understand the reasoning in my heart about this teaching. I’ve read up on it in other threads and articles online, and I still find Paul’s **The church says condoms are wrong. End of story. You basic parental ** to be the best explanation.

 

[Momofmyangels]

I read through the whole thread here and have a few comments. I’ll start with this one. How do we know that it wasn’t God’s plan for that person’s heart to stop beating at that time so they can move on to their life after this life? That would mean the artificial device in that person’s body working against God’s plan?

Of course if God wanted to He could take anybody at any time, or cause somebody to become pregnant at any time regardless of what they do to prevent it. However, it seems that we are continuously able to do things to prevent God’s plan from being fully fulfilled?

In the case of a pacemaker, it does not keep a person alive if their heart actually stops beating. The pacemaker helps to keep the heart rhythm regular in an already beating heart. If the heart stops beating, the pacemaker will continue to work (until the battery dies), but the heart will not respond. Thus if God’s will is that a person dies, a pacemaker will not interfere with that.

I agree that “we are continuosly able to do things to prevent God’s plan from being fully fulfilled,” but the question is, “should we be doing so?” The answer is obviously, no.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Sadly, like Deborah, I’d like to better understand the reasoning in my heart about this teaching. I’ve read up on it in other threads and articles online, and I still find Paul’s **The church says condoms are wrong. End of story. You basic parental ** to be the best explanation.

For me, it is really quite simple. God creates babies. We cannot create them ourselves. Through us, His divine plan is accomplished…if we let Him. We do not and cannot know His plan for us. How do we know if that one time we decide to use some form of birth control, whether it be condoms or whatever, that we have interferred with his plan and said no to the child that would otherwise have been conceived? Using condoms is a deliberate attempt to prevent a pregnancy. It takes away God’s right to create new life, and gives us the ability to say no to God. Have we that right to say no to God?

 

[twoangels]

Both NFP and condoms are methods used to avoid pregnancy.

This is the “ends.”

They have the same exact outcome.

Yep, they both have the same “ends.”

They are both used for the same exact purpose.

Yep, the intention of the couple is to seek out the same ends.

So why are condoms SO wrong wrong wrong, and yet NFP is completely ok?

Because the ends does not justify the means. So let’s identify the means of condoms and the means of NFP. The means of the condom is to create a barrier during the sexual act to counteract a natural function of the sexual act. Hense, it changes the nature of the act. The means of NFP is abstainence, sexual activity is simply not engaged in at all. The fact that you’re having sex when you’re naturally infertile isn’t the means of NFP. NFP isn’t relying on your natural infertility. Its relying on your abstinence.

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??

As others have said, the priest told her wrong. That said, my parents went through a very similiar situation. They started learning NFP later in their marriage and were trying to learn it whole heartedly. My sister was planned, but mom had a very difficult pregnancy and had to be put on bedrest and have pre-term labor stopped a lot. After my sister, they kept trying to avoid with NFP, but she kept getting pregnant. She had 2 miscarriages between my sister and my brother who are only 2 and a half years a part. She nearly bleed to death during one of the miscarriages. My youngest brother too also wasn’t planned and she was very frustrated. She ended up having to quit her job and go on bedrest through most of her pregnancy. She was put on some medication that made her shake and my sister and the dog were shipped off to live with grandma during the duration of her pregnancy. She still delivered my brother early, but safely.

Everyone was telling my Dad that following the Church’s teachings was putting his wife’s life at risk. Even pro NFP people were advising him to take more action, so he got a vesectomy.

I don’t know too much about exactly what was going on with their charting. I know that mom misread her chart when she got pregnant with my brother. I also know her cycles were irregular, and at the time they were both going on about how NFP didn’t work for them and was ineffective. Dad used to say they had no other choice.

But over a decade went by and my parents are both pro NFP and anti contraceptive. Dad only has told me that he realizes what he did was selfish and that he and mom could have made NFP work but at the time “they were younger” and their priorities were different. That’s all they really say. My Dad says he’s re-evaluated some of the things he values. He says that they would not have had to abstain for the remainder of my mom’s fertility. The details are their personal business. But that said, I totally know what watching your parents struggle through trying to make NFP work and seemingly failing and watching your mother go through very high risk pregnancies and miscarriages can do to your own perception about NFP.

 

[HolyCow21]

For me, it is really quite simple. God creates babies. We cannot create them ourselves. Through us, His divine plan is accomplished…if we let Him. We do not and cannot know His plan for us. How do we know if that one time we decide to use some form of birth control, whether it be condoms or whatever, that we have interferred with his plan and said no to the child that would otherwise have been conceived? Using condoms is a deliberate attempt to prevent a pregnancy. It takes away God’s right to create new life, and gives us the ability to say no to God. Have we that right to say no to God?

What if God decided that my wife and I are supposed to conceive a baby Saturday. Saturday arrives and even though there is some urge to have sex, we decide not to. We got the kids to bed too late, she’s too tired, the football game is in OT, and God didn’t scream in our ears that this is supposed to happen, in a way that we clearly understood. So, we missed out on conceiving that baby. What’s the difference in that, and purposely blocking it by artificial contraception? Like the OP, I’m still missing the difference.

 

[HolyCow21]

This is the “ends.”
My sister was planned, but mom had a very difficult pregnancy and had to be put on bedrest and have pre-term labor stopped a lot.

How do we know what God’s plans were in this case? How do we know that using artificial means to stop a pregnancy from naturally terminating was not against God’s plan? (Note: please do not take this comment the wrong way and assume that I am in any way anti-life)

 

[Momofmyangels]

What if God decided that my wife and I are supposed to conceive a baby Saturday. Saturday arrives and even though there is some urge to have sex, we decide not to. We got the kids to bed too late, she’s too tired, the football game is in OT, and God didn’t scream in our ears that this is supposed to happen, in a way that we clearly understood. So, we missed out on conceiving that baby. What’s the difference in that, and purposely blocking it by artificial contraception? Like the OP, I’m still missing the difference.

In your situation above you have not separated the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. You have not said, I want the pleasure, but not the pregnancy.

And also, this situation is actually impossible. Obviously, it was not God’s intent for you to have conceived a child on Saturday because had he willed for you to conceive a child, time would have been created. The kids would have been to bed on time, your wife would not have been too tired and the game would have ended with your favorite team celebrating victory. He is God, He would have created the situation for His plan to be fulfilled.

 

[Abu]

Debora123
I still advocate nfp and I still refuse to use condoms, I just wish I could know why it needs to be this way.

What do you not understand in post #29? Have you taken the trouble to think it through? Please advise.

The natural law signifies that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. Similarly if you want a weak heart to function better you use God-given reason to employ aids which have been developed by reason to help that organ do its work better.

With condoms in marriage you are deliberately trying to prevent the purpose of the act from achieving its natural purpose, while expecting the pleasure which is the accompaniment to achieving the purpose of procreation.

This website enables the worthwhile use of NBR through NaPro Technology for those who need assistance: fertilitycare.com.au/?page_id=7

 

[HolyCow21]

And also, this situation is actually impossible. Obviously, it was not God’s intent for you to have conceived a child on Saturday because had he willed for you to conceive a child, time would have been created. The kids would have been to bed on time, your wife would not have been too tired and the game would have ended with your favorite team celebrating victory. He is God, He would have created the situation for His plan to be fulfilled.

Then how is it possible to actually go against his will? If NFP and condoms have approx equal chance of failure, then God won’t allow either to work if a child is to be conceived at the time you are using either method.

 

[Abu]

Paul1961
you will decide whether to be obedient or not
Observer3
It’s refreshing to see someone who challenges some of the churches rules.
Even the Pope has said that condoms are ok in certain circumstances.

“Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.”

Faithful Catholics don’t rely on the condom mania of the secular media for their morality, they assent to the teaching of Christ’s Church. The Holy Father changed nothing of the infallible doctrine against contraception.

As we have free-will anyone can choose to disobey as Adam & Eve did – from which we all suffer grievously. The “rules” of the Catholic Church, when infallible doctrine such as against contraception, happen to be the that of the Christ, who is God – “He that hears you hears Me.”

 

[Momofmyangels]

Then how is it possible to actually go against his will? If NFP and condoms have approx equal chance of failure, then God won’t allow either to work if a child is to be conceived at the time you are using either method.

NFP “fails” when the information gathered has been misinterpreted. And with NFP, there is no barrier whatsoever when the couple has sex. If a child is to be conceived, there is nothing there to hinder that. A condom fails when there is damage ie. a hole in the latex, allowing sperm to leak out, thus there is no barrier there anymore. An intact condom will not fail, it will create a barrier, it will prevent pregnancy, it will prevent God from creating a new life if that is His desire. To say, well God can do anything, so if I use a condom it won’t matter because He could allow a child to be conceived anyway is wrong. It would be the same as, well I think I’ll try to kill this person by shooting them, because, heck if God doesn’t want them to die yet, they won’t. God is not to be tempted.