Contraception vs nfp

[domestichippie]

It is my understanding that barrier methods are thought be wrong because they are …well a barrier.

Chemical contra ception is believed to be abortifacient.

Other methods thwart the purpose of marital relations.

Correct?

How is it that nfp is ok? Does that not also thwart the purpose?

Please explain.

 

[Corki]

It is my understanding that barrier methods are thought be wrong because they are …well a barrier.

Chemical contra ception is believed to be abortifacient.

Other methods thwart the purpose of marital relations.

Correct?

How is it that nfp is ok? Does that not also thwart the purpose?

Please explain.

It’s because the purpose is only part of the equation. Yes, you can use both contraception and NFP for the purpose of delaying your next pregnancy. There is nothing wrong with the intent to delay having a child for a good reason.

But contraception interrupts the marital act itself. It renders it no longer unitive nor ordered to procreation. With NFP, whenever the couple engage in the marital act, it remains unitive and ordered to procreation.

 

[domestichippie]

It’s because the purpose is only part of the equation. Yes, you can use both contraception and NFP for the purpose of delaying your next pregnancy. There is nothing wrong with the intent to delay having a child for a good reason.

But contraception interrupts the marital act itself. It renders it no longer unitive nor ordered to procreation. With NFP, whenever the couple engage in the marital act, it remains unitive and ordered to procreation.

How is it still ordered to procreation?

 

[stephe1987]

because nothing artificial is being used to prevent pregnancy

 

[Romulus]

How is it still ordered to procreation?

Domes,

well supposedly, what from I have heard…is that even when the wife is not fertile, she still benefits from receiving her husbands semen… “seminal priming” if you will… supposedly helps her to have healthy future pregnancies, when they do decide to have a child. So it’s ordered to procreation.

Where is this study? I have no idea, but I heard it from Jason Evert via catholic answers radio.

If ya find the official study, please share here with us.

 

[manualman]

Think of it this way. When a couple uses NFP to postpone or avoid pregnancy, they have to abstain during the fertile times. Because of this, sex remains deeply identified in their respective psyches with babies. Sex and babies never become separate subjects.

The contraception couple does it whenever they want. Over time, sex becomes utterly unrelated to making babies, even in the deeper part of their souls.

In the modern world we are terribly shallow. We think we know it all and that we can ignore the soul and the effects our behavior has on it. But this damage to our soul from contraception comes home to roost over time. It results in a cheapening of sexual intimacy that tends to cause spouses to view each other selfishly instead of givingly. It leads to divorce, unfaithfulness, pornography and abusive behavior. This all results from our failure to appreciate the truly deep and subtle beauty God designed into our souls and bodies as an interconnected whole. The proof is EVERYWHERE in the society around us that has rejected this teaching. Go, find some catholics that have joyfully accepted this teaching and contrast their lives with the average Joe in the world. See for yourself.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Brendan]

How is it still ordered to procreation?

The marital act is one of full acceptance and full giving. God designed the female body to be fertile at times, and infertile at others.

NFP accepts that, and therefore when each spouse gives themselves to the other, they are giving themselves exactly as God has made them. Nothing is being held back.

When the act is interupted by artiicial means, it is a rejections of the fertiltiy of the spouse. It is, in effect saying, I love you, except for your fertility. God erred in making you fertile at this time, therefore I will change that before I accept your gift or offer mine.

That is hardly a loving thing, to reject as aspect of your spouse that God created in your spouse as a full aspect of humanity.

It is akin to saying, I love you, and I want your gift of self, but I reject your face, so you must wear this bag over your face before I will share my gift of love with you and accept yours in return.

I can pretty much guarantee that if I tried that with my wife, I’d be sleeping on the couch for the next millenium. But couples think that saying the same thing in regards to their spouses fertility is somehow an act of love? I think not.

Fertility is a God given gift and a part of each spouse. NFP respects that and each spouse accepts that in the other EXACTLY as God has given it, no changes.

Artificial means do not, they are a bag over the face of your partners fertility.

 

[sw85]

It is my understanding that barrier methods are thought be wrong because they are …well a barrier.

Chemical contra ception is believed to be abortifacient.

Other methods thwart the purpose of marital relations.

Correct?

How is it that nfp is ok? Does that not also thwart the purpose?

Please explain.

Desiring to avoid pregnancy is not itself a bad thing. One may licitly desire to avoid it under a number of circumstances, including health or financial problems. What matters is the means used to avoid it.

The means have to be appropriate for the ends. We aren’t consequentialists in this Church. Even if the intention is valid (and not mere “I hate kids” or “I want to go on a European vacation”), the means still have to be appropriate. They must not offend against the nature of the act.

Contraception does. NFP doesn’t. Case in point: women get pregnant as a result in noncontraceptive, intravaginal ejaculation, not as a result of ejaculation into a condom.

 

[igor1980]

…
The means have to be appropriate for the ends. We aren’t consequentialists in this Church. Even if the intention is valid (and not mere “I hate kids” or “I want to go on a European vacation”), the means still have to be appropriate. They must not offend against the nature of the act.
…

Please explain how condoms interfere with the nature of the act, but making charts, taking temperatures and all other kind of stuff like that doesn’t.

 

[davidv]

Please explain how condoms interfere with the nature of the act, but making charts, taking temperatures and all other kind of stuff like that doesn’t.

A condom prevents the sperm for getting to its intended (by God) place during intercourse. Recording temperatures and other physical signs does not as there is no intercourse involved.

 

[Corki]

Please explain how condoms interfere with the nature of the act, but making charts, taking temperatures and all other kind of stuff like that doesn’t.

Because you aren’t making charts or taking your temps while you are engaged in the marital act. Making a chart doesn’t interfere with the marital act anymore than baking cookies does.

 

[sw85]

Please explain how condoms interfere with the nature of the act, but making charts, taking temperatures and all other kind of stuff like that doesn’t.

As has been said, nothing about making charts or taking temperatures interferes with the marital act. It’s still noncontraceptive, intravaginal ejaculation. That’s still what tends to result in procreation.

 

[Brendan]

Please explain how condoms interfere with the nature of the act, but making charts, taking temperatures and all other kind of stuff like that doesn’t.

Go read my post above.

One method uses the fertility of each spouse exactly as God created it to be. The other method rejects God’s Gift of Fertility, as He created it.

One method accepts God’s plan for sexualtiy, the other attempts to change it, to restrict God’s Gift.

 

[domestichippie]

Think of it this way. When a couple uses NFP to postpone or avoid pregnancy, they have to abstain during the fertile times. Because of this, sex remains deeply identified in their respective psyches with babies. Sex and babies never become separate subjects.

The contraception couple does it whenever they want. Over time, sex becomes utterly unrelated to making babies, even in the deeper part of their souls.

In the modern world we are terribly shallow. We think we know it all and that we can ignore the soul and the effects our behavior has on it. But this damage to our soul from contraception comes home to roost over time. It results in a cheapening of sexual intimacy that tends to cause spouses to view each other selfishly instead of givingly. It leads to divorce, unfaithfulness, pornography and abusive behavior. This all results from our failure to appreciate the truly deep and subtle beauty God designed into our souls and bodies as an interconnected whole. The proof is EVERYWHERE in the society around us that has rejected this teaching. Go, find some catholics that have joyfully accepted this teaching and contrast their lives with the average Joe in the world. See for yourself.

It it possible that one could go the other way? Focusing on procreation and forget the intimacy part?

Is the fact that there is a chance that contraception may fail to prevent pregnancy even relevant?

 

[manualman]

It it possible that one could go the other way? Focusing on procreation and forget the intimacy part?

Is the fact that there is a chance that contraception may fail to prevent pregnancy even relevant?

1. I suppose so, defined properly. Intimacy isn’t just the thrill, it’s the mutual giving of self to the spouse. Obviously, I wasn’t there and can’t judge, but one would suspect that Prince Charles and Diana’s kids were a result of what you wonder about…
2. No. The INTENT to forcibly divorce sex and babies is what breaks something inside us. Whether it works or not is irrelevant.

 

[igor1980]

…
2. No. The INTENT to forcibly divorce sex and babies is what breaks something inside us. Whether it works or not is irrelevant.

That’s what I can’t understand. Isn’t the INTENT of NFP to have sex without having babies? Why it is ok?

 

[domestichippie]

I always hear the phrase “open to children” wouldn’t nfp still be a an attempt to thwart fertility?

Also what is really an appropriate reason to put off children? For instance we wanted to put off until my daughter was weaned to keep up my milk supply. Now I’m losing wieght. While Wright loss would be good for me and baby mu first child (in spite of my diabetes, which is how I ended up overweight) wad perfectly healthy as was I.

At what point are finances a good reason? Surely God would provide for those children

 

[manualman]

That’s what I can’t understand. Isn’t the INTENT of NFP to have sex without having babies? Why it is ok?

Note that I said “forcibly”.

This is one of those things you might not “get” until you experience it. When is she most likely in the mood? Fertile time. NFP? Abstain. ABC? Grab the gusto, right?

The NFP couple has their faces rubbed in the procreative nature of sexual intimacy quite often. It’s difficult and frustrating, but it ultimately allows the spacing of pregnancies without altering the nature of what sex IS. The ABC couple, not so much. They get in a pill routine, then nothing about their sex life inherently reminds them that the ecosystem of sexuality inludes marriage, sex AND babies. The baby part becomes an appendix instead of an integrated part of the ‘book’ so to speak.

Or my favorite short version. The moral difference between NFP and ABC is the EXACT reason people are so desperate to justify ABC and not have to practice NFP. The nature of the encounter still involves babies, whether any come of it or not.

 

[Corki]

I always hear the phrase “open to children” wouldn’t nfp still be a an attempt to thwart fertility?

Two separate concepts.

Marriage is to be open to children. Part of the marriage vows is to welcome children lovingly from God. An intent to permanently exclude children may invalidate the marriage. Those points have to do with marriage - the whole thing, not just sex.

NFP and contraception have to do with the marital act. What do you do while you are having sex with your spouse? With contraception, you add or subtract something from the marital act. With NFP, you do not do anything that affects the marital act.

NFP does not “thwart fertitily”. A woman is naturally fertile or infertile on different days. NFP does nothing to thwart or even effect that. It just uses knowledge of what is already happening naturally to help a couple plan thier family.

Also what is really an appropriate reason to put off children?

There are no rules. The Church has said it is up to the spouses,** and no one else**, to determine if they have a just reason to postpone another child. My own pastor has said that any reason that is not a selfish one is a just one.

For instance we wanted to put off until my daughter was weaned to keep up my milk supply. Now I’m losing wieght. While Wright loss would be good for me and baby mu first child (in spite of my diabetes, which is how I ended up overweight) wad perfectly healthy as was I.

A health concern is certainly a just reason to consider postponing another child. Having a child that is already breastfeeding is also a just reason to *consider *postponing another child.

At what point are finances a good reason?

Again, this is something you must prayerfully consider as a couple. As a society, we have become less willing to experience financial challenges for the sake of children. I think that’s a bad thing but it’s a societal issue, not a rule for you as a couple. The Church doesn’t expect you to be facing forclosure on your home or be unable to feed your children before you can consider the financial implications of another child.

Surely God would provide for those children

This is the spirituality of providentialism. It is a valid Catholic spirituality but not a required one when it comes to family size.