M
maryjk
Guest
As someone else has already said, there are many reasons that a couple would use NFP for an extended time.
I have used it for many years, and will continue to until I pass through menopause.
- Status
I have used it for many years, and will continue to until I pass through menopause.
M
missmorgan389
Guest
Then why would one need to wear a condom to begin with?
If not everyone that uses ABCs thinks this way, why not just use NFP? Is it because they don’t find it trustworthy as opposed to using condoms?
I would recommend taking an NFP class. I know a parish priest who requires it before he marries anyone in the Church.
Y
Yankee13
Guest
You are clearing some things up, but I’m still not convinced. I think the intention of not having a child belongs to both actions.
When a couple knowingly has sex during the wife’s infertile time, they are intending for conception to be avoided. Sure, they also intend to love one another etc, but the only reason they are having sex when they are is because they know a child will not result. It is their intention to “love one another” as much as it is to avoid pregnancy.
M
maryjk
Guest
Um, no. I don’t go up to my husband and say, I know you aren’t in the mood but, Hey lets have some fun, I’m not fertile.
It is more like, we are in the mood, then checking if I would be fertile. AND choosing to abstain if I am fertile.
So, no, we aren’t having relations BECAUSE we figure that we won’t get pregnant.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’ll try to think of a good example to help explain it, but basically it comes down to a distinction between two intentions that happen to belong to the same person at the same time, and two intentions which belong to the same act at the same time. I freely admit that the person intends both to have sex and to avoid conception at the same time, specifically, while having sex with his wife during her infertile period. What I am saying though, is that the intention to avoid children, while still present in the spouses during intercourse, is not linked to that particular act. Think of it this way, the intention of an action is the desired outcome of that action, that which you are hoping to acheive through the particular action. In other words, you do (or refrain from) some action in the hopes that that action (or lack of an action) will cause your intention to come true. So, if avoiding conception is actually the intention of the couples act of having sex, that would mean that the couple somehow belive that their having sex is going to help cause the result of avoiding conception. This is why I earlier said that it would be mind-numbingly idiotic for a couple to have as an intention of the action of having sex, even during the infertile period, to avoid conception. Everyone knows that having sex, even during ones infertile period increases rather than decreases ones risk of conceiving. So while both intentions might be present in the couple at the same time as them having sex, that doesn’t mean that both intentions belong to the actual act of having sex. And when you are determining the morality of a particular action you only need look to the intentions which actually belong to that action. So in such a case the intention to avoid children does not need to come into the picture because it is not an actual intention of the action of having sex, even though it may be present in the couples minds at the same time as their act of intercourse. Is that any clearer?
C
Corki
Guest
Yes, the intention is important. It is completely possible that someone use NFP with a bad intent and that would be sinful. But intent is only half of the equation. One may never morrally engage in a sinful activity for good intent. The activity of contracepting is wrong, regardless of the intent. The activity to have marital relations in a moral way is good but can be “poisoned” by a bad intent.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I also just want to add that the Church does not say that the intent to avoid conceptionis always wrong. There are definately occasions where this is a legitimate and even a good intention. But whether or not this intention is good or bad, it does not apply to a couple having sex during the wifes infertile period, it is an intention which is linked with either abstaining or using contraceptives, nobody ever engages in sex for the purpose of avoiding conception.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Another way of putting this that might be helpful. If, as you claim, a couple engages in sex during the fertile period so that they can avoid conception that would mean that they would not have had sex that particular day unless they were trying to avoid conception. If an intent belongs to a particular action then the action will not take place without the intent being present. I realize this probably still seems a little convoluted, so if you still don’t see what I am saying please let me know and I’ll try and find another way to explain it. 
A
abcwc
Guest
missm: your center of post #22 is my thinking, too. Why don’t folks use NFP? They think that they will get pregnant; so, yes, NFP is seen as morally permissable because when we come together, our intention may be hoping to avoid a pregnancy, but after 20 years of NFP use, I can assure you, that we still don’t know that we will not get pregnant because we are NOT doing anything to each specific marital act to prevent pregnancy! we are having “unprotected” relations / tongue-in-cheek
** The Catholic Catechism defines artificial contraception to be anything done before, during or after a specific marital act to make conception impossible.- we do want God’s will to be done but we show our working together w/God on this by abstaining at times…these sincere questions and answers are very edifying ; God bless you all
** The Catholic Catechism defines artificial contraception to be anything done before, during or after a specific marital act to make conception impossible.- we do want God’s will to be done but we show our working together w/God on this by abstaining at times…these sincere questions and answers are very edifying ; God bless you all
T
thewanderer
Guest
And this is wy people like the OP get so confused about te Church’s teachings on contraception and NFP. This is not the reason the Church teaches what she does. NFP is not allowed because of a chance of failure, if that were really the reason NFP was allowed for spacing births then the Church would have no problem with ABC’s either. Being open to life does not mean that one must hope to get pregnant or have a chance of becoming pregnant. If that were true then the Church’s teachings would be inconsistant and contradictory, thus allowing one to conclude that those teachings are not all correct. If you want to believe that the Curch does not teach errors then you have to accept that your understanding of Her teachings are incorrect.
M
Michelle9
Guest
I love the Catholic teachings but this is one area that needs improvement. Not that I’d advocate the pill for example. I’d never take something that affects my hormones. In the NFP method you are avoiding intercourse in order not to have a child. So it might be natural but that doesn’t mean you aren’t avoiding contraception. And frankly condoms is a much easier way then for a woman whose periods are not regular to know when she is fertile. There is no logic in the Church’s reasoning. We’d have tons of children if it was like in my grandparents day when women had like 10 children. What women wants to go through that? Avoiding having a child is not a sin just a necessity and it makes no sense that the Church teach this.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I think you misunderstand the Church’s teaching. The Church sees nothing in and of itself wrong with contraception if by contraception you mean acting in a certain way so as to avoid conception. The reason that you always hear about contraception being an intrinsic evil is because people often use contraception to mean artificial contraception which always involves a person rendering an otherwise fertile sexual act infertile. It is this which the Church sees as wrong, not avoiding conception.
The Church’s teachings are actually 100% logical on this if you just realize what the Church actually teaches. Unfortunately many people do not understand what the Church actually teaches and there is a lot of misinformation going around about the actual teachings. If you are still confused about what the Church actually teaches I am more than willing to try and help explain it more fully. Also, as to your question of what woman would want to have 10 kids? Actually, you’d be surprized how many women actually do want large families. Usually its women who have themselves grown up in large families and witnessed first-hand just how amazing they can be. I’ve personally always wanted 4/5 kids (and I came from a family of 7)… until I got to know my boyfriends family with 11 children. They are the happiest, most welcoming, beautiful and just plain all around fun family I know. Now I’ve got to say that while the amount of work and effort required for a family that size is a little daunting, I really think it would be amazing and worth every moment. I’m still not sure if I personally could handle it, but it really is not the horrible picture so many people paint it out to be. I realize not every woman is cut out to be a mother, but please do realize that there are many who love the idea of having large families, so just because you don’t doesn’t mean you should speak as though having large families is always such a horrible thing.
M
Michelle9
Guest
You misunderstand me. I have nothing against large families. But as a woman going through 10 pregnancies is not a pleasant thing.
You’d have to convince me that using a condom in marriage is a sin which I don’t think it is.
You’d have to convince me that using a condom in marriage is a sin which I don’t think it is.
M
maryjk
Guest
Actually, it is your reasoning that has no logic.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Whether or not you agree with the Church’s teaching is one thing, claiming that the Church’s teaching is contradictory or illogical is just plain false. Its actually very logical, if you accept the premises the Church does, then you’re going to end up having to agree with her conclusions.
As I said earlier, the reason the Church holds using condoms as sinful is because it sees it as sinful to take some action to render some particular sexual act infertile. If you disagree with the idea that condoms are sinful it must be because you disagree with this premise. Maybe it would help to look more into why the Church holds this premise?
[EDIT: Oh, also I was definately including going through pregnancy so many times as part of the daunting work and effort involved in such a family, but to oh so many it still seems worth it.
][EDIT: Thanks for the clarification about large families. Its just that the way it was phrased sounded like something people would say who **do have a problem with large families.
]
M
Michelle9
Guest
Why because I don’t agree with Church? You need to explain why.
M
Michelle9
Guest
What is wrong with having sex just for love and pleasure and rendering the sex act infertile? The Bible and therefore God does not say have sex only to make a baby.
And don’t get me wrong I’m not a liberal. I believe abortion is very much a sin.
T
thewanderer
Guest
This is the part that I am not quite as good at explaining, mostly beacause I know I have an incomplete understanding of it myself.
It essentially comes down to the Church’s understanding of nature. It has nothing to do with having sex when you can’t get pregnant. If it did the Church wouldn’t allow post-menopausal or pregnant wives to have sex, but the Church sees nothing wrong with that. What it sees as problematic has nothing to do with the actual act of sex itself, actually, but everything to do with purposefully taking your own fertility and making oneself infertile. It comes down to very nuanced distinctions in the understanding of natural law, so it really is very understandable why it is hard for many people to see it or accept it. But does that explanation help at all? Do you at least see that it does not have anything to do with an insistance that couples have tons of children or out of some fear or hatred of the peasures of sex but that it is rather from some long and involved philosophical argument about nature and the natural law?
M
Michelle9
Guest
Hmm I think you are very nice and polite in attempting to explain it. I see what you mean that it is like going against nature. Howvever, I don’t see this as sinful.This is the part that I am not quite as good at explaining, mostly beacause I know I have an incomplete understanding of it myself.
I think you have made the point very well indeed now that I think about it more. Thank you.
D
davidv
Guest
What do you think makes things sinful?Hmm I think you are very nice and polite in attempting to explain it. I see what you mean that it is like going against nature. Howvever, I don’t see this as sinful.
I think you have made the point very well indeed now that I think about it more. Thank you.
CCC said:
Contraception is a direct offense against the dual purpose of the sexual act, unity of the spouses and co-creation of children. It must be sinful by definition.
- Status