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

[twoangels]

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)

First of all, she wasn’t miscarrying. She was going into pre-term labor. There is a complete difference. Second of all, there is nothing immoral about seeking medical care to save someone’s life.

Contraceptives aren’t immoral because they’re artificial. They’re immoral because sexual pleasure sought for by itself isolated from its unitive and procreative purposes is immoral. Substituting other sexual behaviors to replace for intercourse during the fertile period is just as immoral as putting on a condom.

 

[SonCatcher]

A couple of posters have advanced the following:

Your basic parental…

Honestly, there is nothing wrong with starting obedience in that way. Parents set many simplistic rules for their children at early ages when they are incapable of understanding the full reasons for the rules. Often there are dangers we want the children to avoid. But the rules are for good reason even though children do not yet understand the reasons. There does come a time when children need to understand the peril they face for breaking the rules. The OP has come here for just that reason. Many responders have given good reasons but a few attempt to undermine the rule by claiming there to be no valid peril.

How about this one (for starters):
The Church has examined the issue of contraception for 2000 years (yes, it has been that long) and has consistently taught that it should be avoided. During that time, many theologians have mined the truth of that teaching and confirmed it from many supporting arguments. Even if we do not yet understand them, it is prudent for us to give the Church (who has our spiritual concerns in the foremost of her concern) the benefit of the doubt.

I do this very thing with the issues I struggle with. I still seek answers, naturally, but content myself with the knowledge that the Church has my salvation in mind when she teaches these things.

 

[twoangels]

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.

HolyCow, you’re question is much deeper. If you deny that it is impossible to go against God’s will, you’re denying that human beings have free will and you are denying that it possible to sin. These are much deeper heretical views than simply disagreeing with the Church on the issue of contraception.

 

[HolyCow21]

First of all, she wasn’t miscarrying. She was going into pre-term labor. There is a complete difference. Second of all, there is nothing immoral about seeking medical care to save someone’s life.

Contraceptives aren’t immoral because they’re artificial. They’re immoral because sexual pleasure sought for by itself isolated from its unitive and procreative purposes is immoral. Substituting other sexual behaviors to replace for intercourse during the fertile period is just as immoral as putting on a condom.

I know the difference between pre-term labor and miscarriage. Depending on the extent of the the pre-termedness (made that word up) it can be very dangerous to the survival of the baby. Before modern technology, many babies that were born prematurely were considered quite blessed or lucky to have survived. Today, it’s still scary, but not as much of an issue thanks to all of the technology people have developed to deal with the issues of prematurity. I have triplets who were born at 32 weeks. They are 6 years old now, so I understand prematurity.

Seeking medical care is not immoral to save a life? I agree. But back to the issue of people being able to go against God’s will. If He wants to He will make it happen.

Birth, pregnancy and death can be put off in many instances. If somebody is dying of a heart attack or another natural cause, they can open the person up and use devices to restart the heart, and various medicines will be given to help with the process to reduce the pain and make sure blood flows correctly, and many other things. The person being saved is also damaged physically during the process. They may not regain a quality of life or they may not ever regain consciousness. So the death of the persons body has been averted, life has been sustained. How do we know in that situation that it was God’s will that he be saved? 100 years ago, a person with the same ailment would be dead a lot faster and would hopefully be onto their eternal salvation in the Kingdom of God.

And why do we try to sustain and save the lives of ourselves and people we love? Frankly, part of it is because #1 we’re scared to die and #2 we really kinda like living and being with those around us. Would those not be considered selfish reasons to continue living if it was our time to go?

Would it ever be against His will for somebody to physically be saved if medically (not naturally) possible? It’s hard to imagine that all of the drugs and technology used to prolong life can’t be against God’s will in some instances if using similar technology to not get pregnant is considered evil in His site.

Would a simple explanation be to say if it helps to create or , either existent life or potential life, then it it good and therefore the will of God. And anything that might limit life or take life away, excluding NFP, is evil.

(sorry for the disjointed post, I thought it over a lot and still the best explanation for this rule is the “because I said so” one.)

 

[HolyCow21]

HolyCow, you’re question is much deeper. If you deny that it is impossible to go against God’s will, you’re denying that human beings have free will and you are denying that it possible to sin. These are much deeper heretical views than simply disagreeing with the Church on the issue of contraception.

That reply was to a statement about the situation I posted about being impossible if it were actually the will of God.

 

[jilly4ski]

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?

What I proffered was a natural law argument. It is about God’s design or purpose for everyone. All hearts are meant to beat regularly in order to pump blood through the body. If an individual’s heart does not beat properly it does not invalidate that fact that the purpose of the heart is to pump blood through the body. The pacemaker helps the heart fulfill its purpose. If an individual needs a pacemaker to help his heart fulfill its purpose, his heart problems may or may not have anything to do with God’s plan for him as an individual.

With contraceptives, they frustrate rather than help fulfill the purpose of sex. Not only that, but there is nothing wrong with a couples fertility if they are using condoms. We aren’t talking about God’s plan for individuals, but rather his design for sex.

Your comment seems to deny free will. Of course we can frustrate God’s will for us as individuals, ie people who reject God and go to hell, frustrate God will, as his will is for everyone to go to heaven). God designed the world to work a certain way, we use our reason to figure it out. Thus we can observe that women naturally have infertile and fertile times. This keeps the link between sex and babies together as God designed it to be. But if we use contraceptive we are severing the natural link between sex and babies, thus frustrating God’s design for sex, not necessarily God’s design for that particular couple to have a child.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

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??

Unfortunately I can’t explain anything to you, only tell you that you aren’t alone.

I don’t understand the logic of the church’s very stringent ban on contraceptives. Some of them, yes I can, some of them I don’t get either. I just can’t see the logic in it at all. I have prayed for a “feeling” of wrongness from the Holy Spirit…nadda.

The good news is, we aren’t alone. A priest once told me (when I was talking to him nearly in tears for trying to understand and feeling awful for not agreeing with the church and feeling frustrated because I usually understand most things) that God doesn’t necessarily require that we agree with him all the time (as is true with parents) just that we are obedient. I may not EVER agree with the church or believe as they do on this issue, but I am obedient to them and to God. The priest even suggested that obedience in such cases shows much more faith that agreeing with things and doing them, because that isn’t much of a sacrifice.

I am obedient to the church in my marriage. I always speak out for NFP and defend it, telling everyone that they should use it and avoid ABC. I repeat what the church’s arguments are and I am so glad that my friends get it and follow it. My heart and mind has not fully accepted it (yet!) but I am holding firm to my faith that even though I don’t agree, God knows my heart and intentions and he will judge me based on my faith to follow him even when it seems illogical, rather than some checklist of what I did and did not believe.

 

[mark_a]

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.

You are correct. It is the sound of consciences being pricked.

 

[mark_a]

The good news is, we aren’t alone. A priest once told me (when I was talking to him nearly in tears for trying to understand and feeling awful for not agreeing with the church and feeling frustrated because I usually understand most things) that God doesn’t necessarily require that we agree with him all the time (as is true with parents) just that we are obedient. I may not EVER agree with the church or believe as they do on this issue, but I am obedient to them and to God. The priest even suggested that obedience in such cases shows much more faith that agreeing with things and doing them, because that isn’t much of a sacrifice.

I am obedient to the church in my marriage. I always speak out for NFP and defend it, telling everyone that they should use it and avoid ABC. I repeat what the church’s arguments are and I am so glad that my friends get it and follow it. My heart and mind has not fully accepted it (yet!) but I am holding firm to my faith that even though I don’t agree, God knows my heart and intentions and he will judge me based on my faith to follow him even when it seems illogical, rather than some checklist of what I did and did not believe.

You have a wise priest.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

You have a wise priest.

He really is. I am so blessed to have such a wise and Godly priest in my life.

 

[SonCatcher]

Unfortunately I can’t explain anything to you, only tell you that you aren’t alone.

I don’t understand the logic of the church’s very stringent ban on contraceptives. Some of them, yes I can, some of them I don’t get either. I just can’t see the logic in it at all. I have prayed for a “feeling” of wrongness from the Holy Spirit…nadda.

The good news is, we aren’t alone. A priest once told me (when I was talking to him nearly in tears for trying to understand and feeling awful for not agreeing with the church and feeling frustrated because I usually understand most things) that God doesn’t necessarily require that we agree with him all the time (as is true with parents) just that we are obedient. I may not EVER agree with the church or believe as they do on this issue, but I am obedient to them and to God. The priest even suggested that obedience in such cases shows much more faith that agreeing with things and doing them, because that isn’t much of a sacrifice.

I am obedient to the church in my marriage. I always speak out for NFP and defend it, telling everyone that they should use it and avoid ABC. I repeat what the church’s arguments are and I am so glad that my friends get it and follow it. My heart and mind has not fully accepted it (yet!) but I am holding firm to my faith that even though I don’t agree, God knows my heart and intentions and he will judge me based on my faith to follow him even when it seems illogical, rather than some checklist of what I did and did not believe.

Excellent explanation.

 

[twoangels]

Seeking medical care is not immoral to save a life? I agree. But back to the issue of people being able to go against God’s will. If He wants to He will make it happen.

If a man goes out and rapes a woman, that man is sinning. He is going against the will of God (that is essential the definition of sin). It is never the will of God for a woman to be raped, but yet it happens. And it happens all the same even though God is all powerful. Human beings have been gifted with free will which means that we can choose between following our own will or following God’s will - that is the choice between evil or good. When our wills are out of line with God’s will, that means our wills are aimed toward evil.

God’s will is not destiny or fate to which we are mere pawns of. Rather, we have the gift of free will and can choose to follow our own wills or God’s.

How do we know in that situation that it was God’s will that he be saved? 100 years ago, a person with the same ailment would be dead a lot faster and would hopefully be onto their eternal salvation in the Kingdom of God.

Because we have the moral law, and it is completely moral for us to strive to save the man’s life. In fact, it would be immoral if we did not utilize our own wills and efforts to save that person’s life. This gifts us the ability to act as the hands and feet of Christ. Morality guides us in knowing whether something is in line with God’s will or opposed to His will.

And why do we try to sustain and save the lives of ourselves and people we love? Frankly, part of it is because #1 we’re scared to die and #2 we really kinda like living and being with those around us. Would those not be considered selfish reasons to continue living if it was our time to go?

We are morally obligated to care for our lives and the lives of others’ because of the innate value of ours and their lives. Death entered the world due to sin. It exists because of sin. But Christ conquered sin and death by suffering and dying on the cross and thus redeems these things. As such, we can look to death without fear because we believe in the general ressurection and we have the promise of eternity life which is of greater value than our current lives which will eventually fail us. It is still important to acknowledge that this life is good and it while we can find hope in the tradegy of death, that doesn’t mean that something of real and true value has not been lost that discerns mourning.

Would it ever be against His will for somebody to physically be saved if medically (not naturally) possible? It’s hard to imagine that all of the drugs and technology used to prolong life can’t be against God’s will in some instances if using similar technology to not get pregnant is considered evil in His site.

Life is a positive value. It is a moral good. The same is true with fertility. Contraceptives use technology to treat a moral good as if it were a moral evil, like a disease. Our motivation to do this stems from the sin of lust: our desire to pursue sexual pleasure isolated from its unitive and procreative meanings. Not only does this violate the dignity of the sexual act, but it also demeans the value of human life by treating the procreative powers that creates new life as if they were the enemy.

Would a simple explanation be to say if it helps to create or , either existent life or potential life, then it it good and therefore the will of God. And anything that might limit life or take life away, excluding NFP, is evil.

(sorry for the disjointed post, I thought it over a lot and still the best explanation for this rule is the “because I said so” one.)

Its actually quite a simple concept.

1. Lust is the inordinate desire for sexual pleasure - sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for by itself isolated from its unitive and procreative purposes.
2. Lust is ALWAYS sinful (please note lust is not the sexual urge. See definition above for what lust is)
3. It is not sinful for couples to prevent pregnancy.
4. It is sinful for couples to engage in sexual activity in a lustful manner. Again see definition in point one.
5. The only moral way to prevent pregnancy is to abstain from sex.
6. NFP is moral because it works through periods of abstainance.

If you’re disagreeing with the Church, you’re disagreeing with one of those points, and most likely its a disgreement with the 2nd point and the 4th point.

 

[Observer3]

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.

.

The same could be said of people who agree with the church on everything (notice I said, church, not God). We don’t know for certain that God is against contraception. Jesus and God have never spoken about it. This much is true. People want to believe one organization has all the answers, therefore they force themselves to accept all the rules and dogma. Perhaps God gave you this mind to sort through these challenges. Those who tend to believe things are black and white tend to believe all rules an organization says.

Whitacre Girl - I don’t know why you are trying to force your heart to believe something it doesn’t buy. Just let it be that your soul disagrees with the church. Forcing is rarely a good thing.

 

[roelblomsma]

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??

Look, the problem with the condom is mainly that it is used for extra maritial sex. Thus in a way, saying that the condom is ok, is saying that extra maritial sex is ok. Nevertheless, I also would see no problem with the usage of the condom inside a marriage as I see also no problem with deciding how many children you want to have.

 

[Momofmyangels]

The same could be said of people who agree with the church on everything (notice I said, church, not God). We don’t know for certain that God is against contraception. Jesus and God have never spoken about it. This much is true. People want to believe one organization has all the answers, therefore they force themselves to accept all the rules and dogma. Perhaps God gave you this mind to sort through these challenges. Those who tend to believe things are black and white tend to believe all rules an organization says.

Whitacre Girl - I don’t know why you are trying to force your heart to believe something it doesn’t buy. Just let it be that your soul disagrees with the church. Forcing is rarely a good thing.

God said, “Go forth and multiply.” There were no attachments to that. There was no timeframe in which to end, “Go forth and multiply.” There was no, “stop when you want to.” It was simply stated. These were God’s words and there has been nothing said by Him to contradict those words, only man’s overanalyzing and rationalizing to appease his conscience.

 

[PaulinVA]

God said, “Go forth and multiply.” There were no attachments to that. There was no timeframe in which to end, “Go forth and multiply.” There was no, “stop when you want to.” It was simply stated. These were God’s words and there has been nothing said by Him to contradict those words, only man’s overanalyzing and rationalizing to appease his conscience.

God told Adam and Eve to “Go forth and multiply” Why do you think that applies to us now?

No, really. What exegesis of Genesis supports the reading that God was talking to all people of all time when he said that?

 

[Momofmyangels]

God told Adam and Eve to “Go forth and multiply” Why do you think that applies to us now?

No, really. What exegesis of Genesis supports the reading that God was talking to all people of all time when he said that?

God gave the ten commandments to Moses. How do we know that they were for us also? We could go around this all day. We could excusify away absolutely everything in the Bible if we really wanted to, but would it be the truth? No.

Also, when God said, “Go forth and multiply,” His words were, “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.” Adam and Eve could in no way “fill the earth and subdue it” all on their own. I believe this shows it extends to us. And, contrary to popular belief, the world is not overpopulated so “Go forth and multiply” seems to still be in effect.

 

[PaulinVA]

God gave the ten commandments to Moses. How do we know that they were for us also? We could go around this all day. We could excusify away absolutely everything in the Bible if we really wanted to, but would it be the truth? No.

This has nothing to do with the ten commandments.

Leviticus says that one should not eat shellfish or wear clothes made from two fabrics. Do you follow those laws?

I was asking how you could possibly interpret that passage in Genesis to apply to us now. Your response was basically that the entire Bible applies to us now. I don’t agree that all old testament laws apply to Christians today. But, anyhow, the vague admonition in Genesis isn’t a law or a rule.

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[Momofmyangels]

This has nothing to do with the ten commandments.

Leviticus says that one should not eat shellfish or wear clothes made from two fabrics. Do you follow those laws?

I was asking how you could possibly interpret that passage in Genesis to apply to us now. Your response was basically that the entire Bible applies to us now. I don’t agree that all old testament laws apply to Christians today. But, anyhow, the vague admonition in Genesis isn’t a law or a rule.

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

I essentially agree with the above. But, you know, PaulinVA IF there is a possibility that it is meant for us, coupled with the Church’s teaching on condoms and contraception in general, that is good enough for me. If I am wrong, and have all the children God wills for me to have, what sin have I committed? If on the other hand, I believe it was not meant for us, but only for Adam and Eve and I therefore prevent God from creating new life through me and go against Church teaching, then I have committed a sin. It is a chance I am not willing to make. There certainly will be much I will have to answer for at my judgement, I hope this is not one of them.

 

[SonCatcher]

Someone claimed that neither the Father nor the Son spoke directly on the issue of contraception. For the most part, that is correct. There is the issue of Onan, of course, but that is not in pronouncing law but swift action of the only Just Judge.

I contend that contraception laws were not laid down in the Torah nor the Gospels because that was not an issue among the Jewish people of those times (meaning they did not practice or debate it). After all, what purpose does it serve to tell people to not do what they already are not doing? It can only make them aware of this additional way to sin and therefore be a source of temptation.

The explicit prohibitions against contraception came from the Church guided by the Holy Spirit (as Jesus promised) after she started admitting non-Jewish believers.

Jesus did give other teachings that can easily be applied to contraception through examination application. For example, He warned us to avoid lust and debauchery. Contraception can be demonstrated to be both.