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

[mark_a]

Interesting point, however can you give us an example when NFP is NOT used as a contraceptive?

Thanks

Women can use knowledge, the same knowledge that provides for spacing children further apart, to space them more closely together.

 

[mark_a]

It wasn’t that long ago that large families were the norm and now if you have more then 3 kids people look at you like you are some kind of sex addict.

That’s because their conscience is being pricked.

 

[Abu]

BrushedByAngels, post #233
all this talk of married couples must procreate makes me wonder why it is not mentioned in the NT.

Of course St Paul knows the OT and that’s why he teaches that “the husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights and likewise the wife to her husband.” (1 Cor 7:3).

So many don’t seem to know that God created us so that He could lavish His happiness on us for all eternity and wants as many as possible to share His divine life – which is precisely why He loved us so much as to send His only Son to teach, found His Church, suffer and die to redeem us.

Maureen1125, post #236
It wasn’t that long ago that large families were the norm and now if you have more then 3 kids people look at you like you are some kind of sex addict.

Is it not because many seem oblivious to the fact that there has been a huge increase in relativism and secularism before, during and after Vatican II, and of the reaffirmation of the grave sin of contraception in the infallible definition by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae? The evidence is in the relatively low Mass participation on Sundays now, and in the majority report of Paul VI’s Commission to study the problem of the Pill which wanted to allow contraception – a sad reflection on the selfist attitudes prevailing in the light of the infallible definition against contraception in Casti Connubii of Pius XI in 1930.

 

[Abu]

Thoughtfulone
If geocentrism was not a formal teaching, then not to believe it would not be formally declared a heresy, period.

Galileo was, in the 1633 Decree of the Inquisition, censured as “vehemently suspected of heresy.” No papal declaration of heresy was made. Since a “decree” is neither a dogma nor even a doctrine, and as the authority of the Holy Office does not extend to infallible pronouncements, there is no “fact” of heresy pronounced by any Pope concerning Galileo.

In his multivolume A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 *The Cleaving of Christendom *(Christendom Press, 2000), Dr Warren H Carroll writes that the 1615 [corrected] decree against Galileo as published by the eleven theologians of the Inquisition did not declare his teaching “heretical”. He cites Broderick’s Robert Bellarmine, p 372. In fact, Pope Urban VIII declared that the Copernican theory was not heretical (p 540, citing von Pastor’s History of the Popes).

See Catholic Answers: catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
“The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.”

The popes promoted astronomical research, and there was no Papal or Conciliar declaration of heresy.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I understand a lot of you are going to say my mother’s priest was wrong. I’ve read Christopher West. I’ve even heard him speak. Condom thing still makes no sense to me.

It’s really quite simple. Avoiding pregnancy as an end isn’t wrong. Catholic opposition to contraception is a matter of means, not ends. Yes, using NFP to avoid pregnancy achieves the same result, but it’s not about the result.

When we use NFP we ARE holding back our fertility.

No one said “holding back our fertility” (whatever the heck that vague phrase means) was wrong. *Contracepting an act of intercourse * is the sin.

To “use NFP” is, objectively speaking, simply to measure fertility. What prevents pregnancy is the subsequent abstinence.

And obviously that’s not contraception, since there’s no sex to contracept in that case.

 

[Abu]

Fone Bone 2001
To “use NFP” is, objectively speaking, simply to measure fertility. What prevents pregnancy is the subsequent abstinence.
And obviously that’s not contraception, since there’s no sex to contracept in that case.

That is the heart of the matter!

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

[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

 

[Vico]

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 states that regarding the heliocentric system that the authors of the judgment against it did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, Bellarmine wrote:
I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

Your quote does much more to support my assertion than it does to oppose it.

If you assertion is that the Church taught something as irreformable and could not express it differently, then you do not understand dogma in general. As you can see from post 218, and the next of mine that explained the reason expressed by Bellarmine that it was only a hypothesis at that time, and was not prudent to give a different sense than the holy Fathers, but that if a real proof was found then the contradictory passages should rather say that we have misunderstood.

 

[Debora123]

Avoiding pregnancy as an end isn’t wrong. Catholic opposition to contraception is a matter of means, not ends. Yes, using NFP to avoid pregnancy achieves the same result, but it’s not about the result.

I understand that, but what makes no sense to me is WHY using a rubber glove over the male genitalia during intercourse with one’s spouse is a “wrong means”

No one said “holding back our fertility” (whatever the heck that vague phrase means) was wrong. *Contracepting an act of intercourse * is the sin.

On the contrary, I’ve heard the old “holding back fertility” reasoning in multiple sources - including this thread. I do agree though, that phrase/reasoning is extremely vague, mystical, and has no solid substance whatsoever. But then again, neither is anything else I’ve heard in these regards.

To “use NFP” is, objectively speaking, simply to measure fertility. What prevents pregnancy is the subsequent abstinence.

And obviously that’s not contraception, since there’s no sex to contracept in that case.

So then the big question here is… WHY is it wrong to contracept sex? Is it because it’s wrong to have sex w/o the intention of having children? Well, obviously not, otherwise NFP wouldn’t be allowed either.

And someone brought up a good point. Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about contraception being wrong? Contraception existed back then. If it is suuuuuch a horrible, terrible, evil, mortal, Hell worthy sin that you all are saying it is, then how come Jesus never brought it up once? Not once??? Curious indeed…

 

[dfp42]

I understand that, but what makes no sense to me is WHY using a rubber glove over the male genitalia during intercourse with one’s spouse is a “wrong means”

On the contrary, I’ve heard the old “holding back fertility” reasoning in multiple sources - including this thread. I do agree though, that phrase/reasoning is extremely vague, mystical, and has no solid substance whatsoever. But then again, neither is anything else I’ve heard in these regards.

So then the big question here is… WHY is it wrong to contracept sex? Is it because it’s wrong to have sex w/o the intention of having children? Well, obviously not, otherwise NFP wouldn’t be allowed either.

And someone brought up a good point. Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about contraception being wrong? Contraception existed back then. If it is suuuuuch a horrible, terrible, evil, mortal, Hell worthy sin that you all are saying it is, then how come Jesus never brought it up once? Not once??? Curious indeed…

It’s wrong because the Church says it is. You have to understand that by using a condom you are basically telling God and your partner that I will give you all of me except that deepest core (children) which God has made male and female for within the act of sex. By using a condom you are making a statement from the start that there is something “wrong” naturally with the way God made male and female having sex and we now need to modify it against the way he made us naturally. By using a condom you are disconnecting the aspect of sexual feeling good and procreation from the get go. NFP isn’t 100 percent promised not to get pregnant but you are telling God that his will be done naturally the way he made us and he will have the choice when life begins so be it.

To your second point about where is it in the Bible etc. Catholics don’t operate by Sacred Scripture alone, there’s something called Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching that need to be in place and they are all 3 equally important in the Catholic Church. There are many things Jesus said and did that are not recorded in the Bible. Jesus never wrote a book himself or taught from a book when he was here, he taught orally, preaching and showing good example. We trust in the Church for guidance and truth to have faith in order we come to believe and to understanding to be holy.

 

[Abu]

Debora123
And someone brought up a good point. Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about contraception being wrong? Contraception existed back then. If it is suuuuuch a horrible, terrible, evil, mortal, Hell worthy sin that you all are saying it is, then how come Jesus never brought it up once? Not once??? Curious indeed

A good point?
No a terrible point – clutching at straws, as dfp42 infers by explaining truth.

“a hell worthy sin…You all are saying it is”.

“You all”?
When you dump the selfism, and accept reality, you can come to understand that Christ is God and gave us His Church to infallibly teach us the truth and the errors in faith and morals.
What did Jesus of Nazareth have to say to those who reject His teaching? “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16). How much more infallibility can you have?

Do you not know of Christ’s mandate?

The divine Son of God who founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

 

[Paul1961]

It’s wrong because the Church says it is.

This is true.

The powers that be in the church decided on the rules. Then, they come up with some circular reasoning about why it is. Oh, and we can’t be wrong because we’re infallible.

Arguing about it endlessly does not change the answer. It’s wrong because the Church says it is.

You may either follow this church teaching or not. Free will.

 

[dfp42]

This is true.

The powers that be in the church decided on the rules. Then, they come up with some circular reasoning about why it is. Oh, and we can’t be wrong because we’re infallible.

Arguing about it endlessly does not change the answer. It’s wrong because the Church says it is.

You may either follow this church teaching or not. Free will.

Yeah either you do one thing or the other in the end. This who thread reminds me of this scene in the movie big youtube.com/watch?v=iY2enNCbyZo

I just don’t get it.

 

[BrushedByAngels]

Of course St Paul knows the OT and that’s why he teaches that “the husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights and likewise the wife to her husband.” (1 Cor 7:3).

So many don’t seem to know that God created us so that He could lavish His happiness on us for all eternity and wants as many as possible to share His divine life – which is precisely why He loved us so much as to send His only Son to teach, found His Church, suffer and die to redeem us.

Is it not because many seem oblivious to the fact that there has been a huge increase in relativism and secularism before, during and after Vatican II, and of the reaffirmation of the grave sin of contraception in the infallible definition by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae? The evidence is in the relatively low Mass participation on Sundays now, and in the majority report of Paul VI’s Commission to study the problem of the Pill which wanted to allow contraception – a sad reflection on the selfist attitudes prevailing in the light of the infallible definition against contraception in Casti Connubii of Pius XI in 1930.

Interesting. I don’t see this chapter as procreation (going out and multiplying.) I read the whole chapter and most of it says it is better for man not to marry.

I would assume what Paul meant in regards to married couples is permanent abstinance deprives the other partner of his or her natural marital right which may cause one to commit adultery. However, it could also be argued why “spacing out children” would not be advised.

 

[Good_Daughter]

And someone brought up a good point. Where in the New Testament does Jesus say anything about contraception being wrong? Contraception existed back then. If it is suuuuuch a horrible, terrible, evil, mortal, Hell worthy sin that you all are saying it is, then how come Jesus never brought it up once? Not once??? Curious indeed…

How do male and female, created in God’s image, become “one flesh”?

If you have a few minutes, read both creation accounts in Genesis. Then read Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-5 and St. Paul’s in Ephesians 5:31.

“One-flesh union” must be an important theme if it appears three times (that I’ve noticed) in scripture. I think Catholic teaching on contraception is rooted in the fact that it violates the proper physical form of union for a married couple.

I’m not trying to debate, just offering some scripture for you to consider.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Galileo was, in the 1633 Decree of the Inquisition, censured as “vehemently suspected of heresy.” No papal declaration of heresy was made. Since a “decree” is neither a dogma nor even a doctrine, and as the authority of the Holy Office does not extend to infallible pronouncements, there is no “fact” of heresy pronounced by any Pope concerning Galileo.

In his multivolume A History of Christendom, Vol. 4 *The Cleaving of Christendom *(Christendom Press, 2000), Dr Warren H Carroll writes that the 1615 [corrected] decree against Galileo as published by the eleven theologians of the Inquisition did not declare his teaching “heretical”. He cites Broderick’s Robert Bellarmine, p 372. In fact, Pope Urban VIII declared that the Copernican theory was not heretical (p 540, citing von Pastor’s History of the Popes).

See Catholic Answers: catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
“The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.”

The popes promoted astronomical research, and there was no Papal or Conciliar declaration of heresy.

`So a teaching has to be infallible for us to be bound to follow it according to you? That’s not what you said here:

Faithful Catholics believe what Christ teaches through His Church, which does not teach error through Her Magisterium.

The Church teaches that even non-infallible doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25).

Aside from this, there are many who actually believe this teaching to be infallible based upon the following:

1. **Absolute consensus of the Fathers on geocentrism in the face of Greek heliocentrism **(GWW, Vol. 2, Ch. 13)
2. The continuous belief of the Tradition in geocentrism from the partistics throught the medievals (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 13-14)
3. **The teaching of Scripture, as interpreted and officially endorsed by the 16-17th century Catholic magisterium **(GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 12)
4. The declaration of the same Magisterium that geocentrism is a matter of “faith and morals” because it directly affects the veracity of inspired Scripture (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 12, 14)
5. The canonical trial of Galileo in 1633 which called heliocentrism a “formal heresy” and which has never been officially rescinded, especially noted in the case of Joseph Lalande in 1765 (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 14)
6. The illicit means by which Cardinal Olivieri made possible an imprimatur for Canon Settele in 1822, and the illicit and unsubstantiated reasons Galileo was taken off the Index in 1835 (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 14)
7. The continual allegiance of Catholic editors to geocentrism by putting disclaimers on Newton’s Principia which promoted heliocentrism (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch. 14)
8. The Vatican’s support of geocentrism in 1850 by Mario Marini commissioned book (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch. 14)
9. The failure of Leo XIII’s Prov. Deus, Vatican II and John Paul II’s speech to the PAS to officially endorse heliocentrism and officially negate geocentrism (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 14)
10. Vatican I’s teaching that the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 14).
11. Catholic doctrines that are considered infallible that have much less patristic, traditional or scriptural support than geocentrism. (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch 14)
12. The Vatican’s withdrawal of Pio Paschini’s 1941 book that exonerated Galileo and faulted the Catholic Church. (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch. 14)
13. The teaching of Lumen Gentium 12 that “the whole body of the faithful…cannot err in matters of belief,” geocentrism being a belief in Scriptural data that the Church has always believed and never rejected. (GWW, Vol. 2, Ch. 14)
14. The failure of popular science to prove helicentrism and disprove geocentrism, thus requiring the Church, according to Augustine’s and Leo XIII’s teaching, to hold to traditional beliefs unless science can “prove” its theories. (GWW, Vol. 1, Introduction)

bellarmineforum.xanga.com/702646734/question-138—is-geocentrism-infallible/

FACE IT. The Church was wrong, even on what some traditionalists consider to be an infallible doctrine. The Church has erred on a teaching that was promulgated by ALL of the Church fathers, by ALL of the Popes, and by the Magisterium for 1750 years. They have never rescinded this teaching, although it is no longer formally propagated.

If this were any other teaching and not something so absurd as geocentrism (say, contraception), every Catholic here would shouting infallibility from the rooftops, and some still are.

I will never understand some of the Catholics on this forum whose faith is based so strongly on the idea that the Church is infallible, or can’t err in interpreting scripture that they are willing to practically kill themselves to avoid acknowledging these mistakes. It’s O.K. The Church can and does make mistakes, none of which invalidates the sacraments or any of the other profound truths that the Church holds. It’s just that sometimes, we might not be able to count on the Church to lead us by the hand with 100% accuracy in every situation and we might have to use our God-given brains to assess a teaching or a situation. This whole idea that we must all follow the Catholic Church into error even when our conscience and/or intellect is telling us that she is wrong is silly.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

If you assertion is that the Church taught something as irreformable and could not express it differently, then you do not understand dogma in general. As you can see from post 218, and the next of mine that explained the reason expressed by Bellarmine that it was only a hypothesis at that time, and was not prudent to give a different sense than the holy Fathers, but that if a real proof was found then the contradictory passages should rather say that we have misunderstood.

Nice try. See my post below.

Also, I never personally said it was irreformable, only that it was an official teaching with all of the makings of infallibility (see below) and it was WRONG. Yes, the Church erred in the interpretation of scripture, and might I add, geocentrism is asserted in MANY different scripture passages clearly. If they were wrong about this, to say that they cannot err in the interpretation of scripture (ex: the Onan text, which is much less clear) is pure fantasy.

 

[mark_a]

I understand that, but what makes no sense to me is WHY using a rubber glove over the male genitalia during intercourse with one’s spouse is a “wrong means”

At the very best, a condom is a compromise. No man prefers the way his wife, his soul mate, his lover, the mother of his children feels through a condom. It is a distraction from the very femininity we seek.

Condoms are for prostitutes, imho.

 

[Debora123]

It’s wrong because the Church says it is.

Bahahahahaha!! Well at least you’re up front about it. Thanks for being that
And yes, that’s exactly the conclusion I keep coming to. “Bc the Church says so.”

You have to understand that by using a condom you are basically telling God and your partner that I will give you all of me except that deepest core (children) which God has made male and female for within the act of sex.

Completely untrue. Just because a married couple makes the mutual decision to use a condom to postpone/delay children doesn’t mean they are not open to having children! NFP does the same thing! Like NFP, condoms are used to space out, postpone, or delay pregnancy. Once again, it reaches the same ends.

By using a condom you are making a statement from the start that there is something “wrong” naturally with the way God made male and female having sex and we now need to modify it against the way he made us naturally.

See, this is what I don’t like. Putting intentions/statements into someone else’s actions. I think very few couples (if any) have anything in their minds remotely close to “there’s something wrong with sex” when they use a condom. In the contrary the intentions are the same as someone using NFP - “I hope I don’t get pregnant by having sex this time.”

It’s silly to be so picky about the way God made us naturally when it comes to sex, yet be completely ok with doing all kinds of other artificial things to our body. Including things which are even harmful to our bodies, yet are still “ok.” At least using a condom isn’t physically harmful in the least bit, yet it’s NOT ok???

By using a condom you are disconnecting the aspect of sexual feeling good and procreation from the get go.

By going through extensive means to make darn sure that you are having sex ONLY when you are as close as possible to being 100% sure that no pregnancy will occur, you are doing the same thing. Disconnecting the aspect of feeling good and procreation from the get go.

And besides, it’s not the aspect of “feeling good,” it’s the aspect of unity. Remember, we are talking about married couples here. Just because you’re having sex for reasons other than getting pregnant doesn’t mean you’re having sex just because it feels good.

NFP isn’t 100 percent promised not to get pregnant but you are telling God that his will be done naturally the way he made us and he will have the choice when life begins so be it.

Actually, if NFP is used correctly with a good candidate (someone who has regular cycles, a healthy reproductive system, etc etc) it is actually more successful in avoiding pregnancy than a condom. If God is going to perform some miracle by making a woman get pregnant when there is no egg present (NFP), then He can definitely perform a much lesser miracle and get a condom to break. It isn’t rare at all for condoms to break, that’s why their “failure rate” is higher than NFP. It IS extremely rare for a woman to get pregnant outside of her fertile time zone when no egg is present.

To your second point about where is it in the Bible etc. Catholics don’t operate by Sacred Scripture alone, there’s something called Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching that need to be in place and they are all 3 equally important in the Catholic Church. There are many things Jesus said and did that are not recorded in the Bible. Jesus never wrote a book himself or taught from a book when he was here, he taught orally, preaching and showing good example. We trust in the Church for guidance and truth to have faith in order we come to believe and to understanding to be holy.

Yes yes yes… I know we don’t operate through the bible alone. That still doesn’t take away the weirdness of the fact that Jesus never mentioned it. Contraception has existed throughout all of time, and the only thing in the bible that people use to make an attempt at pointing out that contraception is wrong is the twisted, misunderstood, old testament story of Onan. And even then, Catholic documents don’t even use this story to back up their claim about contraception.

 

[mark_a]

This whole idea that we must all follow the Catholic Church into error even when our conscience and/or intellect is telling us that she is wrong is silly.

No disrespect intended, but why are you so interested in having your conscience affirmed by the Church or even anonimous folks on this board? You’ve stated in another thread that you intend to submit to Church teaching.

 

[Debora123]

At the very best, a condom is a compromise. No man prefers the way his wife, his soul mate, his lover, the mother of his children feels through a condom. It is a distraction from the very femininity we seek.

Because it doesn’t feel as good?

That’s a weak reason as to why using a condom it wrong. Otherwise, cervical caps would be ok, considering it doesn’t hinder the natural, skin-to-skin feel of sex.