Contraception and NFP

[FuzzyBunny116]

What is the moral difference between the two? To my understanding, it is something along the lines of: God gave couples a period of time in which the woman is able to concieve, and thus engaging in intercourse then to prevent pregnancy is natural, while ABC ignores God’s plan and prevents unnaturally pregnancy. Sound right?

 

[Zahmir]

JPII explains this well in Love and Responsibility, and I’m sure there are plenty of other resources for you… but this is it in a nutshell.

Contraception completely defies the natural order in regards to sex. Sex, when coupled with contraceptives, is perverted because it simply allows one person to use the other for pleasure. There is no love because there is no accepting of each other in their entirety.

On the other hand, NFP follows the natural order. However, it is still wrong to use NFP in order to “prevent a baby;” the proper language and attitude is to say, when using NFP, “I am open to a child, but a child would best wait until later.”

In other words, if a couple uses NFP, finds out their pregnant, then becames terribly upset over it, not wanting the baby at all, they have certainly violated the purpose of NFP and are simply using it like a “natural contraceptive.”

The only way to properly use NFP is to say, “In having sex, I am open to the possibilty of have a child.” That’s not to say that you WILL have a child or necessarily have to WANT to have a child then, but certainly you must not be surprised if and when a baby is conceived.

If you really feel like a baby is an absoultely horrible option, abstience is your best course of action.

 

[JaneFrances]

I prefer the fasting/purging analogy. I think it best explains the moral/ethical differences between Contraceptives and NFP.

There is a person who desires not to gain weight. She has two options. Two means by which she can achieve this end. First, she could eat all she wants and then purge what she has consumed (Contraception). Second, she can diet and fast (Natural Family Planning). Which is better? Which is morally licit?

Most people recognize the moral implications of the first choice. In choosing the binging and purging method, you act selfishly all the while trying to avoid the natural consequences of your actions. But, the second choice–to diet and fast–allows you the same end (not gaining weight) through morally licit means. In fact, through diet and fasting (throw in some exercise for good measure), a person has the opportunity to practice virtue while still achieving the desired end.

Basically, the difference between Contraception and NFP isn’t the end, it’s the means. A couple can have perfectly moral and good reasons to avoid pregnancy (weight gain). How they go about achieving that end, however, is the question. Do they do it selfishly–enjoying the sensual pleasures, but avoiding the consequences (also know as “gifts” to the NFPer)? Or, do they do it selflessly through prayer and sexual fasting?

A wise person once said that it is very hard to be selfish and sacrificial.

 

[Atreyu]

Great answer Jane! I would add that just as dieting and fasting can be abused (in the case of anorexia for example), so too can NFP be abused, if practiced for the wrong reasons.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Great answer Jane! I would add that just as dieting and fasting can be abused (in the case of anorexia for example), so too can NFP be abused, if practiced for the wrong reasons.

Right on. The intention to not have children in a given cycle is not immoral in and of itself. The intention to use NFP as a loophole around the Catholic teaching on contraception and exclude children altogether from a marriage would be an example of an immoral intention.

 

[JaneFrances]

Absolutely, the particulars of any given “serious reason” are of most importance. This is precisely why prayer and constant self examination is necessary to practice NFP well. As Christians, we are called not only to do the right thing, but to do the right thing for the right reasons!

 

[mercygate]

I like to appeal to Paul’s phrase in the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans, referring to “unnatural sexual acts.” NOT having intercourse is not an unnatural act. Contracepting IS an unnatural sexual act.

Elsewhere Paul counsels that couples may abstain for a period for prayer . . . It is OK not to have intercourse. Even if a couple has intercourse 3 times a day, most of the time in your marriage you are not engaging in intercourse. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with abstaining (although it is NOT OK in the normal course of events NEVER to have intercourse). There is a lot of freedom for a couple to determine for themselves the seriousness of their reasons for limiting the number of children.

 

[Pug]

What is the moral difference between the two?

The couple who contracepts takes acts of intercourse and tries to make them infertile or way less fertile. The couple who does NFP does not alter the fertility of any act of intercourse. No one tries to reduce the fertility of any actual act of intercourse.

The Church sees it as okay on any particular day for a couple to choose not to have relations for various reasons. There is no absolute imperative to engage in intercourse each day.

 

[1ke]

NFP and contraception are both methods of birth control. Birth control is just the spacing & planning of children.

The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control. Big difference.

Why?

Each marriage act (act of sexual intercourse) must be unaltered before, during, or after the act. No action may taken to alter the act because each act must be objectively unitive and procreative in order to be authentic and properly ordered as God designed.

Subjectively that particular act may or may not be procreative. For example, if someone is naturally infertile due to time of the month, post-menopause, already pregnant, etc, then an unaltered act of intercourse is objectively procreative but subjectively does not result in conception.

**How does NFP meet this criteria? **In NFP each marital act is objectively unitive and procreative. If you have reason to avoid pregnancy you do not engage in the act. That respects the objective elements that must be present in every act.

How does contraception fail to meet this criteria? When contracepting a couple engages in the marital act while simultaneously altering the act to nullify it’s procreative element-- either before, during, or after the act. Before-- sterilization, Pill, sponge, diaphram, condom, IUD. During-- withdrawal, masterbatory acts that don’t culminate in intercourse. After- morning after pill, abortion. All of these things alter the act either in anticipation of, during, or after.

NFP says: Don’t want to become pregnant at that time? Abstain and respect the act as God created it because we and the act serve God. Engage in the act when the woman is naturally infertile and never alter the act.

Contraception says: Don’t want to become pregnant? Have sex and mutilate the act because the act serves us.

NFP is not an alterative to contraception, it’s an alternative to complete abstinence.

For more, go to www.omsoul.com and pick up some of their resources, especially the Contraception Why Not CD by Janet Smith.