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

[Thoughtfulone]

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?

God did NOT kill Onan for contraception. God killed Onan because he basically raped his dead brother’s wife. He didn’t want to face the public humiliation ceremony involved in refusing to give children to his brother’s wife, but he also didn’t want to give her children that would go down in the lineage as being his brother’s, so he slept with her and essentially lied to her about trying to father her children. Do you think she would have just slept with him anyway? No. So he didn’t fulfill his duty as a brother but also didn’t undergo the public humiliation that he should have for refusing to father her children and slept with his brother’s wife anyway while deceiving her all along. This is why God killed Onan. Biblical scholars agree with this and even the Church doesn’t use Onanism as an argument against contraception anymore.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

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. I like you, will follow NFP after this baby, but I think the whole condom thing is silly. I’m also not crazy about jamming my hand inside my body every day and rooting around to check for cervical position, so that test is out. We will be using the Clearblue Easy fertility monitor (an ARTIFICIAL scientific device, btw) and mucous, but the mucous will be tough to do while nursing since you pretty much don’t produce any. All of this seems like a LOT more effort to go to to make sure one doesn’t get pregnant than using a condom…

I must say, whether I used condoms or NFP, my mentality would be the same: Please don’t let me get pregnant, but if I do, I will accept and love whatever child comes out of it. SAME EXACT MENTALITY.

 

[jilly4ski]

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!

Did you read the thread? There are a couple problems with your post. The first is that there is more to morality than intent, means also matter. Think of it this way, if a coupe could not have a child for very serious reasons they completely abstain from the marital act. Is that immoral because they are not being open to conception? Of course not, this is a perfectly acceptable way to prevent pregnancy. NFP is similar to the complete abstinence. When the couple can conceive the refrain from marital relations just like the completely abstaining couple, but when they are unlikely to conceive they may engage in marital relations just like couples in menopause, pregnant, infertile couples, and all couples who are in the infertile phase of their cycle. Is it wrong when these couples engage in the marital act? Again of course not.

So how can it be that a NFP couple is sinning?

Is it because of their intent? They are trying to control births, but again is that a sin? No, as we see above a couple could completely abstain if they needed to. They could have selfish reasons for abstaining or may be unjustly refusing the marital rights to the other spouse, which are sins but not the same sin of contraception.

Now contraception is a sin, not because it is 'birth control" per se, but because it rejects God’s design and purpose for the marital act. Each marital act must be both “procreative and unitive.” Now these words have a specific definition, procreative is an adjective describing the marital act, so it doesn’t mean that every act must end in procreation, but that procreation could occur if fertility were present. Thus NFP fits this definition, because when the couple does engage in the marital act conception could occur if fertility were present (the infertile phases of a woman’s cycle were designed by God). ABC does not fit this definition because the couple have put a barrier which prevents the act from being apt for procreation if fertility were present.

Thus the difference is the fact that one couple is abstaining while the other is having sex.

 

[Debora123]

God did NOT kill Onan for contraception. God killed Onan because he basically raped his dead brother’s wife. He didn’t want to face the public humiliation ceremony involved in refusing to give children to his brother’s wife, but he also didn’t want to give her children that would go down in the lineage as being his brother’s, so he slept with her and essentially lied to her about trying to father her children. Do you think she would have just slept with him anyway? No. So he didn’t fulfill his duty as a brother but also didn’t undergo the public humiliation that he should have for refusing to father her children and slept with his brother’s wife anyway while deceiving her all along. This is why God killed Onan. Biblical scholars agree with this and even the Church doesn’t use Onanism as an argument against contraception anymore.

I know, right?

And besides, I don’t even know why people use the story of Onan to teach any type of moral lesson whatsoever. I mean, seriously? This is a story about a man who was supposed to fornicate with his brother’s wife only for the sake of getting her pregnant. No unitive aspect involved, no love, no marriage, no nothing. Now that right there is wrong in itself, and considered extremely immoral nowadays. Why on Earth people still try to use this extremely old, twisted story to teach any sort of moral lesson or make any kind of Catholic point, is beyond me. There are so many things wrong with it to begin with.

 

[Debora123]

Thus the difference is the fact that one couple is abstaining while the other is having sex.

Right, and having sex with your spouse is just such a horrible thing…

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Did you read the thread? There are a couple problems with your post. The first is that there is more to morality than intent, means also matter. Think of it this way, if a coupe could not have a child for very serious reasons they completely abstain from the marital act. Is that immoral because they are not being open to conception? Of course not, this is a perfectly acceptable way to prevent pregnancy. NFP is similar to the complete abstinence. When the couple can conceive the refrain from marital relations just like the completely abstaining couple, but when they are unlikely to conceive they may engage in marital relations just like couples in menopause, pregnant, infertile couples, and all couples who are in the infertile phase of their cycle. Is it wrong when these couples engage in the marital act? Again of course not.

So how can it be that a NFP couple is sinning?

Is it because of their intent? They are trying to control births, but again is that a sin? No, as we see above a couple could completely abstain if they needed to. They could have selfish reasons for abstaining or may be unjustly refusing the marital rights to the other spouse, which are sins but not the same sin of contraception.

Now contraception is a sin, not because it is 'birth control" per se, but because it rejects God’s design and purpose for the marital act. Each marital act must be both “procreative and unitive.” Now these words have a specific definition, procreative is an adjective describing the marital act, so it doesn’t mean that every act must end in procreation, but that procreation could occur if fertility were present. Thus NFP fits this definition, because when the couple does engage in the marital act conception could occur if fertility were present (the infertile phases of a woman’s cycle were designed by God). ABC does not fit this definition because the couple have put a barrier which prevents the act from being apt for procreation if fertility were present.

Thus the difference is the fact that one couple is abstaining while the other is having sex.

This is where I get hung up: You say condoms reject God’s purpose and design for the marital act. Why does EVERY single act have to be procreative? That is the same thing as saying that each time I eat, I must eat something that is nutritive or I am rejecting God’s plan for the purpose of food. Every time I went to the movies and ordered box of junior mints and a Coke, I would be committing a mortal sin because those things have no nutritional value and all kinds of artificial flavors and preservatives and the purpose of eating is to nourish the body with essential vitamins and minerals.

We all know that this is ridiculous. Why? Because we look at our diet as a WHOLE. Am I generally eating in such a way that I am looking to nourish my body and maintain my health? Yes? then I am not sinning.

Why, oh why is the Church then sooo hung up on SEX and doesn’t apply these standards to anything else?

Personally, I think it is because the Church, no matter what she would have us believe, still has some idea that sex is somehow “dirty” and needs to be in some way “sanitized” in order to be licit. This is why oral sex and condoms are prohibited. Unless it is done to EXACT specifications and someone, somewhere can make the argument that “making babies” is a real possibility and nothing is done to prevent it, then and ONLY THEN is sex not some depraved act. This is the only explanation as to why this all or nothing mentality applies ONLY to sex and nothing else.

 

[cfrancis]

In that case, what if a couple used nfp AND condoms? What if they abstained during the fertile days, but then had condom sex during the infertile days,** just in case?**

I realize I’m weighing in late in the game, but Debora’s verbiage provided the answer for me.

“Just in case” what?

I’ve heard the argument that “God is bigger than any thin latex barrier…” but that argument never includes the fact that God both gave us and respects our free will. The pro-ABC camp rarely, if ever, includes God’s will in the discussion; in effect, they usurp God’s authority to declare that they are lord of their bodies, their fertility; the options are ABC and/or sterilization.
The “just in case” is an attitude; it can be more accurately stated as, “to be sure” that THEIR will be done, not His. God will honor that decision.

“Just in case” what? “Just in case” a child is conceived.
I think that is the difference between those who use NFP (not with a contraceptive mentallity) and those who use ABC.
The ABC couple’s attitude is “just in case” → “to be sure”.
The NFP couple’s attitude is, “We believe this is the right decision, but your will be done, God, not ours.”

As for the idea that the ABC couple sacrifices because sex doesn’t feel as good…that’s like saying that you’ll make a sacrifice and put less sugar in the cheesecake. You still get to eat the cheesecake…

 

[Debora123]

CONDOMS

A man is withholding his sperm from his wife by using a rubber barrier when they make love.

AND/OR

A woman is rejecting her husband’s sperm by ensuring that he uses a rubber barrier when they make love.

= the couple is trying not to get pregnant

NFP

A man is rejecting his wife’s fertility by refusing to make love to her while she is fertile.

AND/OR

A woman is withholding her fertility from her husband by refusing to make love to him while she is fertile.

= the couple is trying not to get pregnant

---

SO, as you see here, in both cases, certain lengths are taken and a certain rejection/withholding of fertility is taking place.

The rest is a legalistic splitting of hairs. Sorry.

 

[Debora123]

“Just in case” what?

I’ve heard the argument that “God is bigger than any thin latex barrier…” but that argument never includes the fact that God both gave us and respects our free will. The pro-ABC camp rarely, if ever, includes God’s will in the discussion; in effect, they usurp God’s authority to declare that they are lord of their bodies, their fertility; the options are ABC and/or sterilization.
The “just in case” is an attitude; it can be more accurately stated as, “to be sure” that THEIR will be done, not His. God will honor that decision.

“Just in case” what? “Just in case” a child is conceived.
I think that is the difference between those who use NFP (not with a contraceptive mentallity) and those who use ABC.
The ABC couple’s attitude is “just in case” → “to be sure”.
The NFP couple’s attitude is, “We believe this is the right decision, but your will be done, God, not ours.”
/QUOTE]

Ok, lets take a look at the natural method then:

A women decides to count days to avoid pregnancy.

But then she also decides to check her mucous discharge… just in case.

And then, just to make even more sure, she decides to check her cervical positioning, just in case.

And just in case, she might decided to go even farther than that and use some sort of fertility monitory. Just in case.

And on top of all that, as a safety net, she adds a couple more abstinence days to her charting…*** just in case.***

JUST IN CASE a child is to be conceived. Period.

 

[Debora123]

“Just in case” what?

I’ve heard the argument that “God is bigger than any thin latex barrier…” but that argument never includes the fact that God both gave us and respects our free will. The pro-ABC camp rarely, if ever, includes God’s will in the discussion; in effect, they usurp God’s authority to declare that they are lord of their bodies, their fertility; the options are ABC and/or sterilization.
The “just in case” is an attitude; it can be more accurately stated as, “to be sure” that THEIR will be done, not His. God will honor that decision.

“Just in case” what? “Just in case” a child is conceived.
I think that is the difference between those who use NFP (not with a contraceptive mentallity) and those who use ABC.
The ABC couple’s attitude is “just in case” → “to be sure”.
The NFP couple’s attitude is, “We believe this is the right decision, but your will be done, God, not ours.”

Ok, lets take a look at the natural method then:

A women decides to count days to avoid pregnancy.

But then she also decides to check her mucous discharge… just in case.

And then, just to make even more sure, she decides to check her cervical positioning, just in case.

Also, to have even more success, she figures she’ll also take her temperature every morning, just in case.

And just in case, she might decided to go even farther than that and use some sort of fertility monitory. Just in case.

And on top of all that, as a safety net, she adds a couple more abstinence days to her charting…*** just in case.***

JUST IN CASE a child is to be conceived. Period.

 

[cfrancis]

This is where I get hung up: You say condoms reject God’s purpose and design for the marital act. Why does EVERY single act have to be procreative? That is the same thing as saying that each time I eat, I must eat something that is nutritive or I am rejecting God’s plan for the purpose of food.

Well, aren’t you? I mean, food is meant to be energy for the body; God has made eating good, because we can make food taste good and it doesn’t hurt to eat. I’m not saying this is a necessarily a mortal sin (you raised that issue to suit your point) but it can be → gluttony. Unless you think God’s plan for fueling the body includes every food produced - which I don’t think you believe.

We all know that this is ridiculous. Why? Because we look at our diet as a WHOLE. Am I generally eating in such a way that I am looking to nourish my body and maintain my health? Yes? then I am not sinning.

Interesting - and when you do go off the healthy diet, do we not look at that as the exception, a guilty pleasure?
So great - you are eating well. But what about the guy whose diet - by choice - consists of Diet Coke and Twinkies, Pop Tarts, french fries, etc… Is he following God’s plan for sustaining our bodies?

I find it odd that when those who support the Church’s teaching use the analogy of “I can either earn money to buy the gift or shoplift” we are met with the “apples and oranges,” “they really aren’t the same” reply; yet we are to accept an analogy that compares food to sex.

Why, oh why is the Church then sooo hung up on SEX and doesn’t apply these standards to anything else?

Why is the US government so hung up on security to protect key facilities and functions? Why are you so hung up about protecting your home and loved ones? Because it’s what you value.
The Church values sex between husband and wife and does not wish to see it cheapened!
The Church recognizes that sex between husband and wife reflects the intimacy of the Holy Trinity; it is our human opportunity to participate, in a very unique way, in the communion that is the Holy Trinity. At no time within that communion of the Holy Trinity does any member withhold any part.
Only when the pro-ABC crowd can provide an example where God does not love completely, totally, giving Himself fully, will I begin to think the Church has this wrong.

 

[Cherry5]

When the couple can conceive the refrain from marital relations just like the completely abstaining couple,** but when they are unlikely to conceive they may engage in marital relations** just like couples in menopause, pregnant, infertile couples, and all couples who are in the infertile phase of their cycle. Is it wrong when these couples engage in the marital act? Again of course not.

I am sorry but I can not agree that this is as being open to procreation! They are making an explicit attempt to avoid conception!

Is it because of their intent?** They are trying to control births, but again is that a sin?**** No, as we see above a couple could completely abstain if they needed to**. They could have selfish reasons for abstaining or may be unjustly refusing the marital rights to the other spouse, which are sins but not the same sin of contraception.

I disagree with this as well, Trying to control births?

Now contraception is a sin, not because it is 'birth control" per se, but because it rejects God’s design and purpose for the marital act. Each marital act must be both “procreative and unitive.” Now these words have a specific definition, procreative is an adjective describing the marital act, so it doesn’t mean that every act must end in procreation, but that procreation could occur if fertility were present. Thus NFP fits this definition, because when the couple does engage in the marital act conception could occur if fertility were present (the infertile phases of a woman’s cycle were designed by God). ABC does not fit this definition because the couple have put a barrier which prevents the act from being apt for procreation if fertility were present.

Thus the difference is the fact that one couple is abstaining while the other is having sex.

How can fertility be present when you have consciously (intention) eliminated it from the equation? Sorry I do not get it.

I am not going to argue this as this is an observation and I know this has been intensely debated, we have to accept the Church’s teachings.

 

[cfrancis]

Ok, lets take a look at the natural method then:

A women decides to count days to avoid pregnancy.

But then she also decides to check her mucous discharge… just in case.

And then, just to make even more sure, she decides to check her cervical positioning, just in case.

Also, to have even more success, she figures she’ll also take her temperature every morning, just in case.

And just in case, she might decided to go even farther than that and use some sort of fertility monitory. Just in case.

And on top of all that, as a safety net, she adds a couple more abstinence days to her charting…*** just in case.***

JUST IN CASE a child is to be conceived. Period.

Yep - and when they do come together, they realize that even those actions do not preclude pregnancy (only abstinence does that). And so they approach their love making with the attitude of “Not our will, but God’s be done.”

Your statement does not address the attitude issue. Implied your statement is the couple who uses ABC is open to God’s will by actually counting on the failure rate of the condom. I cannot think of another instance where people use a product so that it accomplishes that for which it was intended AND counts on its failure.

As you are fond of building arguments to suit your purpose, let’s continue:
The ABC couple begins with condoms, “to be sure” that their will is done.
But the couple gets pregnant, as they have no need to worry about fertile/infertile periods (i.e., they are willing to eat cheesecake with a little less sugar!).
We’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they allow the pregnancy to continue and give birth.
But the child wasn’t their will, so they need to be sure their will is done.
So the couple agrees to add the Pill.
And on it goes.

 

[Cherry5]

Yep - and when they do come together, they realize that even those actions do not preclude pregnancy (only abstinence does that). And so they approach their love making with the attitude of “Not our will, but God’s be done.”

Seriously, after taking all the steps to make sure you do not get pregnant, you are telling God, I have taken all precautions possible, now if you want me to get pregnant it is up to you to work a miracle!

 

[cfrancis]

CONDOMS

A man is withholding his sperm from his wife by using a rubber barrier when they make love.

AND/OR

A woman is rejecting her husband’s sperm by ensuring that he uses a rubber barrier when they make love.

= the couple is trying not to get pregnant

NFP

A man is rejecting his wife’s fertility by refusing to make love to her while she is fertile.

AND/OR

A woman is withholding her fertility from her husband by refusing to make love to him while she is fertile.

= the couple is trying not to get pregnant

---

SO, as you see here, in both cases, certain lengths are taken and a certain rejection/withholding of fertility is taking place.

The rest is a legalistic splitting of hairs. Sorry.

If you please, I’ll highlight some different words in your post:

CONDOMS

A man is withholding his sperm from his wife by using a rubber barrier when they make love.

AND/OR

A woman is rejecting her husband’s sperm by ensuring that he uses a rubber barrier when they make love.

= the couple is trying not to get pregnant

NFP

A man is rejecting his wife’s fertility by refusing to make love to her while she is fertile.

AND/OR

A woman is withholding her fertility from her husband by refusing to make love to him while she is fertile.

= the couple is trying not to get pregnant

Of course, for your point to be valid, you need to use “refusing” as it presents the NFP couple as not working together, as one side imposing the abstinence on another.
And I need to ask why the equations aren’t equal, why the “while she is fertile” isn’t in the Condom side of the equation?
Actually, your presentation - the exclusion of “while she is fertile” - reveals the stark contrast between the two options. In spite of your assertions otherwise, there is no sacrifice involved with condoms, which brings us back to the attitude issue.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Well, aren’t you? I mean, food is meant to be energy for the body; God has made eating good, because we can make food taste good and it doesn’t hurt to eat. I’m not saying this is a necessarily a mortal sin (you raised that issue to suit your point) but it can be → gluttony. Unless you think God’s plan for fueling the body includes every food produced - which I don’t think you believe.

Interesting - and when you do go off the healthy diet, do we not look at that as the exception, a guilty pleasure?

The Church and some very clever theologians came up with the analogy of the Trinity as it relates to sex and now it is being used as some sort of mystical standard by which all sexual activity should be judged. It is a very literary and lovely concept, but it is only an analogy for what takes place when a husband and wife decide of themselves and voluntarily to be open to conception. Do you honestly believe that MONTHS of planning and charting and temperature taking and cervix-checking and classes and hundreds of dollars spent on tools and monitors are in any way being “totally self-giving and open in a trinitarian way to God’s plan”? If you say “yes”, then I wish you could be a fly on the wall when the woman who already has 7 kids and is totally tapped out monetarily and temporally gets that positive pregnancy test and spends the next 3 days in bed crying her eyes out while her husband stays up all night going over the bills and trying to figure out how to make it work, all the while seeing his dreams flushed down the toilet. This is the reality of it and there is nothing beautiful or giving or “accepting” about it.

 

[cfrancis]

Seriously, after taking all the steps to make sure you do not get pregnant, you are telling God, I have taken all precautions possible, now if you want me to get pregnant it is up to you to work a miracle!

Miracle? Really? We agree that abstinence is the only way to guarantee no pregnancy, right?
Even with the steps taken, there is no guarantee that the woman is not fertile - unless the couple is coming together during her menstruation.
So, man and woman come together in the marriage bed. How is that a miracle? Unless you are referring to the miracle of creation in which that couple is allowed to share with God, should a child be conceived.
But if you refer to the coming together of man and woman with the possibility of getting pregnant as a “miracle” in order to support condom usage…seriously, that’s a stretch.

Perhaps I can re-phrase your question and turn it to you:
Seriously, after coming together using a condom, you are telling God, “It’s up to you to make the condom fail if you want us to have a child?” That’s being open to God’s will?

 

[Cherry5]

Perhaps I can re-phrase your question and turn it to you:
Seriously, after coming together using a condom, you are telling God, “It’s up to you to make the condom fail if you want us to have a child?” That’s being open to God’s will?

I agree in both cases you are stacking the odds up against getting pregnant only using different methods, which is why I said in the first place if the Church is trying to prevent us from being an obstacle to God’s plan both NFP and condoms should not be acceptable.

 

[cfrancis]

The Church and some very clever theologians came up with the analogy of the Trinity as it relates to sex and now it is being used as some sort of mystical standard by which all sexual activity should be judged. It is a very literary and lovely concept, but it is only an analogy for what takes place when a husband and wife decide of themselves and voluntarily to be open to conception. Do you honestly believe that MONTHS of planning and charting and temperature taking and cervix-checking and classes and hundreds of dollars spent on tools and monitors are in any way being “totally self-giving and open in a trinitarian way to God’s plan”? If you say “yes”, then I wish you could be a fly on the wall when the woman who already has 7 kids and is totally tapped out monetarily and temporally gets that positive pregnancy test and spends the next 3 days in bed crying her eyes out while her husband stays up all night going over the bills and trying to figure out how to make it work, all the while seeing his dreams flushed down the toilet. This is the reality of it and there is nothing beautiful or giving or “accepting” about it.

Ah yes. It didn’t take long for this argument to come up!
First, your statement implies you see no relationship between the nuptial union and the Trinity.
Second, I do say “yes”, and know many large families (as I have 6 children, “large” for me = more than six) who, by secular standards, should be despairing and miserable because they do not have the “stuff” that society says makes us happy. But their happiness is not in things; yes, times do get tough for them, but their focus is on God, their faith, and getting their children to heaven.
That is the reality of it, and it is totally beautiful and all about giving.

I also know several families who have no children or one or two and desparately want more, so they use NFP. Some of these couples most likely can’t have children for physiological reasons; but there have been several births through the use of NFP.

I find your example ironic; on the one hand, Debora argues that NFP is MORE reliable than condoms, therefore condoms allow more of God’s will. Yet your story has NFP not being reliable, that the couple should rely on condoms. One of you has to be wrong.

 

[chain]

While the vows might vary a little, all Catholic marriages require 3 questions of intent.

Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in Marriage?

Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?

**Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?
**
A couple who enters into a marriage with a lie is going to have some problems.​

If you have violated Church teaching and had sex with a condom, you are well aware it is not the same thing as without.

The difference between NFP and ABC is that NFP can be used for a licit reason - ABC can not. It is still wrong to contracept without a serious reason, ABC or NFP. But NFP forces you to be somewhat open to life - and this crack is the beauty of NFP. NFP often it leads a couple to see the truth in that statement (contraception without serious reason is against the Chastity of a married relationship), even if it was not their original intent.

ymmv, but even illicit NFP helped to teach my wife and myself the sanctity of human life, and the miracle of co-creation. The result of this was us wanting another child, and he is now about 2 weeks old. (after spending months using NFP create life).