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

[pfeifer999]

“Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.”

Having written that, I have to ask: have you actually practiced NFP?

I also need to note that “for a time” is not precisely defined, and that it says specifically that we should “return to one another”.

With regard to your absolute position that any non-procreative sex is non-unitive, I have to ask some further questions about what the Church teaches in this area.

If there is a 1:1 relation between “potentially procreative” and “unitive”, what does the Church teach in the following situations. These are teachings that I’ve read on various internet forums as being approved by the Church, mostly right here on this forum, but have not traced back to any other official document. If one finds that these teachings are in error I would love to have citations proving so:

— the convert who was sterilized before conversion: is not obligated to reverse the sterilization procedure, nor to abstain from the conjugal act

— the Catholic who is sterilized but repents: is not obligated to reverse the procedure, nor to abstain from the conjugal act

— the woman who takes hormonal birth control pills to regularize cycles: is not required to abstain from the conjugal act

— the man who is, through accident or disease, rendered sterile: is not required to abstain from the conjugal act

It would seem that the Church does not teach that there must be a 1:1 relation between “potentially procreative” and “unitive” for the conjugal act to be permissible.

If then it is permissible in the circumstances noted above, why are there not other exceptions based on other circumstances?

As far as sterilization being a form of mutilation and “hence sinful”, could you offer a more detailed argument connecting the two? If I have a simple wart removed for cosmetic reasons, is that a form of “sinful” mutiliation? If one is born with a sixth finger (it happens) and has it removed, is that a form of “sinful” mutilation?

 

[mark_a]

But it’s important to me that I am the best mom I can be and that means I want to be able to give each child lots of love and attention and not spread myself too thin.

But what about the love between brothers? Between sisters? Check any large Catholic (or any Christian) family and you will see more love, not less.

 

[mark_a]

Stop listening to the people on here who see everything in absolutes. Jesus wouldn’t want you to be in exhausted and a poor mother by taking on more than you can handle. You can keep chasing those man-invented church ideals, or you can be more practical and do what’s in the best interest of your family. Use some kind of better birth control.

Why would you advise a Catholic to disobey the teachings of his or her Church?

 

[Abu]

mark a
Why would you advise a Catholic to disobey the teachings of his or her Church?

Which are really the teachings of Christ, the Son of God, through His own Church.

pfeifer999
With regard to conversion to the true Church, or repentance after sin, how strange that such an awakening would not empower the subject to do everything possible to undo the previous wrong. Any married person rendered sterile through accident or disease is free to having marital relations with their spouse.

Why should the assistance of medical techniques to cure an ailment or prevent a disease be compared to the mutilation of sterilization which destroys the natural procreative function provided by the Creator?

all.org/article/index/id/MjQ4NQ
Even if a woman were married, birth control drugs COULD (whether or not they SHOULD be used is another discussion) be used to treat a medical condition as long as the husband and wife were to abstain from marital relations, thereby eliminating the contraceptive effect.

Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (or NSAIDS) of which Ibuprofen is the most commonly known. Ibuprofen acts to actually stop the production of those pain-causing compounds we saw earlier: prostaglandins. A typical prescription dose is 600-800 mg. three times daily. Taken during menstruation this will be beneficial for most women. It is as simple as taking 3-4 Advil three times daily during menstruation. Natural progesterone given cooperatively with a woman’s cycle may actually reduce the amount of pain and bleeding a woman has in any cycle by supporting her body with natural progesterone, just like her body produces in the second half of her monthly cycle. This hormone is available everywhere by prescription in the form of a product called Prometrium. This natural hormone has NONE of the risks of birth control pills and actually makes most women feel better as opposed to most women getting ill with their first few cycles of birth control pills.
See: ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=454167&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=Pill+for+medical+reasons&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=17&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Vico]

“Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.”

Having written that, I have to ask: have you actually practiced NFP?

I also need to note that “for a time” is not precisely defined, and that it says specifically that we should “return to one another”.

With regard to your absolute position that any non-procreative sex is non-unitive, I have to ask some further questions about what the Church teaches in this area.

If there is a 1:1 relation between “potentially procreative” and “unitive”, what does the Church teach in the following situations. These are teachings that I’ve read on various internet forums as being approved by the Church, mostly right here on this forum, but have not traced back to any other official document. If one finds that these teachings are in error I would love to have citations proving so:

— the convert who was sterilized before conversion: is not obligated to reverse the sterilization procedure, nor to abstain from the conjugal act

— the Catholic who is sterilized but repents: is not obligated to reverse the procedure, nor to abstain from the conjugal act

— the woman who takes hormonal birth control pills to regularize cycles: is not required to abstain from the conjugal act

— the man who is, through accident or disease, rendered sterile: is not required to abstain from the conjugal act

It would seem that the Church does not teach that there must be a 1:1 relation between “potentially procreative” and “unitive” for the conjugal act to be permissible.

If then it is permissible in the circumstances noted above, why are there not other exceptions based on other circumstances?

As far as sterilization being a form of mutilation and “hence sinful”, could you offer a more detailed argument connecting the two? If I have a simple wart removed for cosmetic reasons, is that a form of “sinful” mutiliation? If one is born with a sixth finger (it happens) and has it removed, is that a form of “sinful” mutilation?

Yes, fast for a time, and then return to one another to avoid defrauding; one that has married grants the right to conjugal relations apt for the creation of children.
defraud: to take away or withhold money, rights, property, etc., from (a person) by fraud; cheat; swindle
There are two aspects to the conjugal act: the grant of rights which is part of the marital covenent, and the exercise of that right. Not using the form of conjugal act apt for the creation of children is non-unitive. The covenent is based upon a grant of the form of conjugal act that would ideally produce children if fertile, it is “apt”. We may not know what the result of the conjugal act exercised, but must not objectively exclude the unitive and procreative form of that act in our covenantial grant. To do so would be invalid consent.

Best not to misread “apt for the creation of children” as “non-procreative sex is non-unitive”. Non-procreative sex is non-procreative, which may be justified with serious and moral motive.

Sterility is not an impediment to matrimony, regardless of how it occurred. There are really two functions of the conjugal act: creation of children and prevention of immorality (quelling of the sexual desire). The conjugal act apt for creation of children itself is unitive, even when not fertile.

An individual that sterilizes themselves will have to seek forgiveness from God, and will have to deal with the consequences. Operations that restore normal function are good, those that intend as a primary end to destroy normal function are not. A reversal of sterilization should be sought if it would be possible economically and would actually work. The sterilized person must still honor their marital covenant granting the right to conjugal act apt for the creation of children.

The person that takes hormonal treatment that results in contraception, for a medical condition, is not seeking contraception as the primary end, which means it does not determine the will. The same thing is true of those with serious moral motive for NFP, due to economic, social, eugenic, or medical reasons, which are independent of the good will of the couple to produce children for mankind (viz., mankind depends upon fruitful marriages). Serious motive is not sufficient by itself, it is also necessary to honor the proper form of conjugal act, which can be achieved along with abstinance during the likely fertile times.

I hope you read the address by Pope Pius XII in the last post, but it is a difficult read.
Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

Did that cover everything?

 

[pfeifer999]

I suppose it “covered” the specifics, but it didn’t address the general. The general point is that the Church herself admits that not all sex that is non-procreative is “intrinsically evil”, there are plenty of circumstances in which even deliberate human will is the cause of the sterility.

Yet a couple who has 10 kids and then gets sterilized is going to Hell, but a couple who has 1 child and then uses NFP for their lifetime gets the brass halo. Sorry, but most of the arguments here, relying on phrases like “intrinsic nature”, sound like Jesuitical hair-splitting.

Let’s just cut to the chase. In its pastoral application, this teaching is designed to demand a large family from the serious, loyal, thoughtful Catholic, while leaving the lukewarm and uniformed off the hook, free to put their weekly offering in the basket every Sunday with a clear conscience. Sorry to sound so cynical, but it is what it is.

If the Church were really concerned about this issue then ever priest in the Church would be giving sermons at least monthly on the subject so that all Catholics could inform their conscience. Ask yourself the last time you heard a parish priest give that homily.

 

[davidv]

I suppose it “covered” the specifics, but it didn’t address the general. The general point is that the Church herself admits that not all sex that is non-procreative is “intrinsically evil”, there are plenty of circumstances in which even deliberate human will is the cause of the sterility.

This is not what the church teaches. **All **non-procreative sex acts are disordered and sinful.

Yet a couple who has 10 kids and then gets sterilized is going to Hell, but a couple who has 1 child and then uses NFP for their lifetime gets the brass halo. Sorry, but most of the arguments here, relying on phrases like “intrinsic nature”, sound like Jesuitical hair-splitting.

Invalid arguement. 1) Hell is not the necessary outcome - repentance is an option.
2) False dicotomy, as the first case doesn’t require hell, the second case doesn’t guarentee heaven.

Let’s just cut to the chase. In its pastoral application, this teaching is designed to demand a large family from the serious, loyal, thoughtful Catholic, while leaving the lukewarm and uniformed off the hook, free to put their weekly offering in the basket every Sunday with a clear conscience. Sorry to sound so cynical, but it is what it is.

Your cynicism is unwarrantedy because it is based on false assumptions.

If the Church were really concerned about this issue then ever priest in the Church would be giving sermons at least monthly on the subject so that all Catholics could inform their conscience. Ask yourself the last time you heard a parish priest give that homily.

Who are to demand that the Church do things your way?

 

[pfeifer999]

This is not what the church teaches. **All **non-procreative sex acts are disordered and sinful.

You didn’t read the thread. There were four examples earlier on that contradict what you say.

I didn’t, and I don’t. Everyone else on this thread is having a calm inquiry without any hostility or name calling. Why are you so angry, David?

 

[davidv]

I didn’t, and I don’t. Everyone else on this thread is having a calm inquiry without any hostility or name calling. Why are you so angry, David?

**If **I am angry, it is because of the misrepresentation presented in the post I responded to. And it seems that you continue to do so here. What naming calling did I do? Any hostility you saw was self-inflicted.

The Church’s teaching on contraception is clear and unambigous. Misunderstandings are related to many things, one of them is to confuse procreation and fertility. Another is to limit the determination of morality to just “intention”.

 

[pfeifer999]

If I am angry, it is because of the misrepresentation presented in the post I responded to. And it seems that you continue to do so here. What naming calling did I do? Any hostility you saw was self-inflicted.

The Church’s teaching on contraception is clear and unambigous. Misunderstandings are related to many things, one of them is to confuse procreation and fertility. Another is to limit the determination of morality to just “intention”.

David, “misrepresentation” is an accusation.

If I’m wrong, and you’re a good Catholic, following Christ’s example, you’d correct me, not accuse me. “Let the one without sin throw the first stone.”

You are showing great uncharity, friend David, in accusing me of “misrepresentation”, and of assuming that I am some ignorant trouble maker, some kind of heretic “misrepresenting” things to lead the flock astray.

If I’ve said a single thing in my posts that is contrary to Church teaching, please point it out and I will humbly recant. I believe I merely asked questions.

But to your point, the Church’s teaching in *Unam Sanctam *was also “clear and unambiguous” . . . . though it is not the Church’s current teaching.

In Scripture, Christ Himself encourages the steward to invest his master’s money for gain. The Church’s position at the time of the Councils of Carthage (345) and Aix (789) was that it is legitimate to charge interest on a loan. Canon Law in the middle ages forbade it as a mortal sin.

The Fifth Lateran Council re-defined usury in light of changes in economic and monetary theory. Today the Church lends money and charges interest through the Vatican Bank. Google “Pope Benedict Financial Information Authority” if you’re curious.

Which teaching was “clear and unambiguous”, David, the one that said that charging interest was a mortal sin, or the one that said it was OK? Which practice was licit, David, banning the charging of interest, or having the Vatican profit by it?

With regard to so many things, we’re reminded that the New Covenant fulfills the Old, which we’re not bound to observe. Yet in matters pertaining to reproduction, the Pharisaical approach is alive and well. “Let the one without sin throw the first stone.”

This is a debate forum. In charity, if your only contribution to the debate is to accuse anyone who raises a question as offering “misinterpretation” there might be happier ways for you to spend your time.

Pax,

Mark.

 

[Vico]

I suppose it “covered” the specifics, but it didn’t address the general. The general point is that the Church herself admits that not all sex that is non-procreative is “intrinsically evil”, there are plenty of circumstances in which even deliberate human will is the cause of the sterility.

Yet a couple who has 10 kids and then gets sterilized is going to Hell, but a couple who has 1 child and then uses NFP for their lifetime gets the brass halo. Sorry, but most of the arguments here, relying on phrases like “intrinsic nature”, sound like Jesuitical hair-splitting.

Let’s just cut to the chase. In its pastoral application, this teaching is designed to demand a large family from the serious, loyal, thoughtful Catholic, while leaving the lukewarm and uniformed off the hook, free to put their weekly offering in the basket every Sunday with a clear conscience. Sorry to sound so cynical, but it is what it is.

If the Church were really concerned about this issue then ever priest in the Church would be giving sermons at least monthly on the subject so that all Catholics could inform their conscience. Ask yourself the last time you heard a parish priest give that homily.

There is always a price to pay for sterilization, in this world and maybe even the next.

You said: “Yet a couple who has 10 kids and then gets sterilized is going to Hell, but a couple who has 1 child and then uses NFP for their lifetime gets the brass halo.”

If knowingly done and unrepented, yes! The person that repents at the end of a sinful life may be saved, vs. where the lifelong pius person, that rebels at the end may not. There is a parable about that. Also there are varying degrees of reward in heaven, the most saintly enjoy the greatest.

It is not designed to be what you say it is: “leaving the lukewarm and uniformed off the hook”. We know that by design, when baptised there is someone that takes responsibility for the education of the child. If the education is not completed then the responsibility has been shirked. As an adult, we learn that we have the responsibility to increase our understanding of the faith. The faithful people need to educate themselves in the faith, not be passive, which is a sin in itself.

I have hear homilies with sexual topics. Since children are present, the way it is expressed is restrained. Included were topics pertaining to Humanae Vitae, more than once.

 

[Abu]

After attacking the Church on contraception and being shown the truths of Her teaching which support assisting the body to heal itself while condemning mutilation, pfeifer999 now attacks the Church on usury.

Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.

**Has the Catholic Church changed its teaching on usury? **
No.
Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the decrees of councils and popes condemn the taking of interest on loans to the poor and the greed of usurers, but say nothing about the charging of interest in general.

Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful. The larger ethical issue of the morality of interest-taking is not addressed in the Old Testament. Rather, interest was viewed only as a problem of social justice. The problem of commutative justice, i.e., of equivalence of value in an exchange of present for future goods, remained quite untouched (Thomas F. Divine, S.J., Interest, 10).

With free enterprise as developed by the Late Scholastics, the Church defined what is meant by usury. Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”
Consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable.

The Franciscan St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444) was perhaps the first theologian to recognize that time of use had an economic value and, at least in certain cases, might be licitly compensated. St. Antoninus (1389-1459), a Dominican of Florence, seems to have questioned whether Aristotle was correct in saying that money is naturally sterile. Money alone, he said, is sterile, but, combined with knowledge and enterprise, it is fruitful. His Summa Moralis examined commerce and banking, and prepared the way for modern notions of interest, which generally regard proper returns on loans taken with just title as fair.

Today, the term “usury” is usually reserved for taking excessive (i.e., unusually high for the economic conditions) interest on a loan because of someone’s circumstances: The greed of the lender takes unjust advantage of the weakness or ignorance of the borrower. [See *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor].

 

[Thoughtfulone]

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 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…

So St. Paul believed that the only good reason for marriage is if you are doing it to avoid fornication and lust, otherwise, one should just remain single? That’s a lovely sentiment. I wish I had known about this verse before I got married so I could have included it in my vows.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

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.

The same way that God could cause a condom to fail if it were His plan for you to conceive?

 

[jilly4ski]

The same way that God could cause a condom to fail if it were His plan for you to conceive?

So, that doesn’t mean that the couple using the condom didn’t deliberately try to block God’s purposes and plan by trying to have sex without the natural consequences that flow from that choice.

 

[Vico]

So St. Paul believed that the only good reason for marriage is if you are doing it to avoid fornication and lust, otherwise, one should just remain single? That’s a lovely sentiment. I wish I had known about this verse before I got married so I could have included it in my vows.

St. Paul 1 Cor. 7:8-14 & 27-28 (NAB):

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire. To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her; and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy.

…

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

St. Paul 1 Cor. 7:8-14 & 27-28 (NAB):

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire. To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (not the Lord): if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on living with him, he should not divorce her; and if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy.

…

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.

Right, so anyone since the time of Paul who was single according to Paul should remain that way unless they are in danger of falling prey to lust or fornication. This is his advice. At least that would solve the population problem!

 

[Debora123]

Right, so anyone since the time of Paul who was single according to Paul should remain that way unless they are in danger of falling prey to lust or fornication. This is his advice. At least that would solve the population problem!

Haha, sounds pretty bizarre to me.

In my opinion, it’s only a matter of time before the Church comes to its senses and realizes that the NFP vs condom thing is nothing but legalism. Splitting hairs. The whole rationalism behind it is just so silly.

 

[Abu]

Debora123, post #138
In my opinion, it’s only a matter of time before the Church comes to its senses and realizes that the NFP vs condom thing is nothing but legalism. Splitting hairs. The whole rationalism behind it is just so silly.

We do know for certain that God is against contraception. God killed Onan for contraception (Gen 38:8-10)
We know for certain that Christ is the Son of God.
We know for certain that Christ established His Church with His authority and power to teach only truth.
We know for certain that Christ gave Peter primacy and infallibility to teach on faith and morals, protected by the Holy Spirit from error.
We know that “opinions”, wishes, desires, prejudices have no place against truth.
We know that the definitions against every form of contraception are infallible in Casti Connubii (Pius XI, 1930), and *Humanae Vitae *(Paul VI, 1968).
We know the state of dissenters: Christ, Himself, warned “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17)

Christ solemnly promised “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you even to the end of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)
How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied?

 

[Cherry5]

Haha, sounds pretty bizarre to me.

In my opinion, it’s only a matter of time before the Church comes to its senses and realizes that the NFP vs condom thing is nothing but legalism. Splitting hairs. The whole rationalism behind it is just so silly.

I agree, technically there seems to be no difference, the intent is the same. The logical approach would be either ban both or make them both acceptable. I just do not see how NFP makes sense in the context of being open to conception! The intention of the couple is to ensure that conception does not take place. If it did take place, it would be considered a “mistake” and not a result of trying to be open to the will of the Father. If they wanted to be open to the will of the Father in a pure sense they would have intercourse on impulse (that was inspired by God), knowing that the Father would either allow or disallow conception. This would be really open to the will of the Father!