Contraception Questions for a Newly Converted Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter tdakers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tdakers said:
I still don’t see how the NFP which is a form of natural contreseption is Church approved but coitus interuptis is not? The way I see it coitus interuptis has a higher chance of pregnancy results than NFP due do it being only 78% effective. It seems like splitting hairs that this form of contreseption is ok because we say it isn’t but this was is not ok because we say so.
Click to expand...
Because it’s not about natural. I make sense of it by phrasing it as

The only moral way to avoid babies is to not engage in acts that make babies.
 
By contraception the Church means taking an action to sterilize the marital act. CI sterilizes the marital act. NFP does not. NFP is not contraception at all, as the Church understands it. Regulation of birth for serious/just reasons is licit; the methods of achieving that are total abstinence or partial abstinence (NFP). The effectiveness of the method is not relevant; it is the method itself that disorders the act (i.e., sterilizes what was supposed to be fertile - - as in CI and other forms of contraception).

I do not think the Church understands sex to be either a) only for procreation or b) for recreation at all. I think the Church teaches that the purpose of marriage, and the marital act, are procreation and to unify the spouses. Strictly speaking the pleasure is not the purpose. The procreative and unitive parts always go together, and it is disordered to separate the two, since that is the way God designed us.

Genesis 38:8-10 appeared in your comments earlier in the thread, and you state what you think it means. Have you investigated what the Church traditionally understood it to mean? Perhaps consider who has the authority to authentically interpret Scripture, you or the Church.

By the way, kudos to you for being humble and obedient to a teaching that you trying to understand.
 
tdakers said:
I still don’t see how the NFP which is a form of natural contreseption is Church approved but coitus interuptis is not?
Click to expand...
I think you may be misunderstanding some definitions here. Another way to explain the Church teaching is like this: contraception is prohibited because it is intended to prevent pregnancy. However, an action that is intended to avoid pregnancy is licit if it’s performed for grave and serious reasons.

It doesn’t matter whether the contraceptive method in question involves manmade items (pills, condoms, etc.) or if it’s strictly natural in the sense of “not manmade.” Coitus interruptus is contraceptive in nature as it’s intended to frustrate the biological mechanism that leads to pregnancy. NFP does not frustrate the biological mechanism; it simply works with the fact that the biological mechanism doesn’t always actually lead to pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
tdakers said:
I still don’t see how the NFP which is a form of natural contreseption
Click to expand...
Contra means against. Monitoring one’s fertility and choosing whether or not to engage in the marital act based on that information is not “contraception”. Choosing to engage in a frustrated marital act is contraception, it is actively doing something against the marital act.

Sometimes concepts are easier if you reverse them.

Based on the observation of fertility, if not acting is contraception, then morality would dictate that a couple MUST engage in the marital act on every fertile day. You will not find such a command in the Tradition, tradition, doctrine or dogma of the Church.

It is okay for a couple to choose to refrain from the marital act tonight, tomorrow, next Tuesday, three weeks from Saturday, etc.

“NFP” is a colloquial term for gathering information. That is all it is.
 
I was told by an OBGYN that, after I got diagnosed with PCOS, that I may have to use birth control to treat my PCOS if it got serious.

I’m pretty sure I panicked. I am so thankful that it never got to that point…
 
We cannot give medical advice, but, I would advise you to seek another opinion, from the PPVI Institute for example.
 
The Church does not teach that “wasting” ovum nor sperm is a sin. The sin is in the frustration of the marital act.
 
An unfertilized egg is not wasted in the same sense as squandered sperm.
 
Naturally humans can procreate. Definitely doesn’t mean they should though. No point in making more people if you can’t raise them well and not all married couples should have kids. Dressing it up saying it’s a gift does not do much. It’s just natural and necessary for the continuation of the species but doesn’t mean people should have a ton of kids
 
I think even using the terminology of spilled seed has been a huge mistake. In terms of crude matter, sperm is almost worthless (hundreds of millions will be made and expelled in even a fully chaste man’s life). The sexuality and chastity of the man who made that seed is of paramount importance. Talking of the former takes the attention off the latter.
 
Please, “wasted” and “squandered” may be a Monty Python laugh but they are not part of Catholic teaching.
 
“not all married couples should have kids” It would be the very unusual exception, though, seeing as how the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children; it is possible, however, that a couple would have a serious reason to postpone pregnancy for a long time or indefinitely.

“doesn’t mean people should have a ton of kids” Well, the Church doesn’t teach that a couple has to have as many kids as possible in as short a time as possible, but again, the starting presumption in marriage is that by virtue of being married, the couple is ready for kids.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top