Explaining the difference between NFP and condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter more_philip
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

more_philip

Guest
Someone asked me why it is wrong for a couple to use NFP primarily and if they have a good reason not to have children or space births, why can’t they use condoms as “back up”?

How do I explain that condoms put a barrier between husband and wife and their are not one flesh and that using condoms shows lack of trust and faith in God’s natural law?

Are there any good readings or church documents that I can read or share with this individual that explains why morally there it would be wrong?
 
This discussion is as involved as explaining the difference between annulment and ‘catholic divorce’.

Sorry… I saw no one had responded yet… So I stirred up the pot for ya and now I’m gonna walk away and let the NFP experts go at this question!!

Hee hee

😉
 
Abstaining from sex and having altered sex are not the same thing.
 
Welcome to CAF!

I think you answered your own question. You tell them that condoms put a barrier between husband and wife and their are not one flesh and that using condoms shows lack of trust and faith in God’s natural law. One flesh = direct skin to skin contact. Condoms show a lack of trust and faith in God that He knows when the timing is right for one to conceive.
 
more_philip said:
Someone asked me why it is wrong for a couple to use NFP primarily and if they have a good reason not to have children or space births, why can’t they use condoms as “back up”?

How do I explain that condoms put a barrier between husband and wife and their are not one flesh and that using condoms shows lack of trust and faith in God’s natural law?

Are there any good readings or church documents that I can read or share with this individual that explains why morally there it would be wrong?
Click to expand...
Friend it is because the spilling of seed is against divine revelation.

He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, be- cause he did a detestable thing. Genesis 38:9-10
 
Condoms frustrate the meaning and natural outcome of the marital act, as do all forms of artificial birth control. NFP does not do this, rather it works with them: infertile periods are perfectly natural and God-given.
 
First of all, the object of spacing one’s children for sufficent reason is not contrary to God’s law.

So just looking at the ‘goal’ is insufficent. one also has to look at the means.

Say for example, that one wanted to own an HD TV. There is nothing wrong with owning an HD TV.

But there IS a difference between working at honest employment to gain the money to purchase the TV, and simply stealing the money to purchase the TV.

In each case, the end result, the owning of an HD TV is accomplished, correct?

The MEANS are different.

So we know must look at the means of the use of Artificial Birth Control (ABC) of any type, and NFP (we will leave aside the fact that NFP can be used to CONCIEVE at child for now)

Using ABC involves an element of rejection of the other person, It is a rejection of their natural (God given) fertility. It is a statement that you love the person, just not ALL of the person.

What do you think a spouse would say of you said to them, “I Love you, but I reject your face, please wear this brown bag over your head before I will make love to you”. Does anyone really think that such a statement is a loving, caring thing to say. Does it show love for one’s spouse.

But ABC is making the same statement in regards to the spouses fertility. That you do NOT love all of them, that you insist that they cover up their fertility before you will make love to them.

Rejection should not be a requirement for the marital act. It is contrary to the very nature of the marital act. It is a rejection of the fertility that God gave them.

NFP, on the other hand, gives full acceptance to the fertility that God gave each person. There is no rejection in the marital act, only full acceptance of the entirety of the spouse.
 
Elizabeth Anscombe, a great philosopher, goes over the distinction in excruciating detail here.
 
neophyte said:
Condoms frustrate the meaning and natural outcome of the marital act
Click to expand...
My struggle is this…

So does NFP!

The AIM is to “frustrate the natural outcome of the marital act” in the very same way that a condom is!

Sorry. I am just convinced that this area of teaching is very sticky… It always reminds me of when Jesus told us that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
 
more_philip said:
Someone asked me why it is wrong for a couple to use NFP primarily and if they have a good reason not to have children or space births, why can’t they use condoms as “back up”?

How do I explain that condoms put a barrier between husband and wife and their are not one flesh and that using condoms shows lack of trust and faith in God’s natural law?

Are there any good readings or church documents that I can read or share with this individual that explains why morally there it would be wrong?
Click to expand...
It is simple:
During the infertile times of woman, there is natural union of bodies (junction of bodies, do you know what i mean!!!). But with the male condoms or the female condoms, the union of bodies is not total and not complete.

The definition of the fact of making one flesh with sexual cooperation in the human fashion is the key. The general rule is to respect the natural law, or better not to go against artificially, voluntary and directly without good reasons.
 
aaronlgates said:
My struggle is this…

So does NFP!

The AIM is to “frustrate the natural outcome of the marital act” in the very same way that a condom is!

Sorry. I am just convinced that this area of teaching is very sticky… It always reminds me of when Jesus told us that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
Click to expand...
Can you explain how:
  1. …having sex in the infertile period frustrates the outcome of the marital act? In other words, explain how the procreative power of an act is frustrated within an act that takes place within a time where there is no procreative power to frustrate (because it is happening in a naturally infertile period)?
  2. …avoiding sex frustrates a marital act…that isn’t even taking place…?
Also, don’t get hung up on “AIM”. The sin is in what one does to the marital act…thwarting either the unitive or procreative (or both) aspects of the act. There is no sin in a couple not wanting to conceive at any given time (provided just reasons, etc…) as long as they don’t DO anything that thwarts either aspect. I’m sure we agree that abstinence does not thwart anything. So, can you explain how having sex in an infertile period, while still completing the act in the natural manner, thwarts either aspect?
 
aaronlgates said:
My struggle is this…

So does NFP!

The AIM is to “frustrate the natural outcome of the marital act” in the very same way that a condom is!

Sorry. I am just convinced that this area of teaching is very sticky… It always reminds me of when Jesus told us that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Contraception requires little commitment, self- or mutual discipline, and not much communication. Usually it is the responsibility of one party, more or less.

NFP requires education, discussion and communication, commitment and discipline by both parties, individually and together.

Now, consider what makes for a good relationship. Knowing about each other, discussion and good communication, commitment and discipline. NFP fosters the growth of all of these, while forms of artificial contraception tend to let them wither.

Perhaps this is why couples who depend on artificial contraception have about a 40% divorce rate, while those committed to NFP have about 2% divorce rates.

If there was a way to cut your chance on divorce by a factor of 20, would you take it?
 
aaronlgates said:
My struggle is this…

So does NFP!
Click to expand...
Not at all! Sexual intimacy is a non-verbal language of love. The spouses speak to each other in their actions. When a couple uses some sort of contraception, their body language is saying to each other: “this encounter between us has nothing whatsoever to do with making babies.” This is a non-verbal lie. It’s not merely a cosmic accident that there is an integral link between making love and making babies. The two are linked for a very profound reason. Forcibly decoupling the two changes what sex IS.

The couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy, on the other hand, ALSO communicates non-verbally. They send each other the message “we have a serious reason not to have more children right now and as a result we choose to abstain from that embrace that we desire and that makes babies.” The choice to abstain from what they desire due to the circumstances allows their later coupling to remain truthful. For them, sex still remains fundamentally something linked to new life. And if they DO forget, God was smart enough to build in monthly reminders: the fertile time. Having to abstain during that time has a funny way of making you look real hard at your ‘serious’ reason for avoiding more babies. It’s why I have three so far instead of two. And most of my NFP friends and family have had similar experiences. NFP leaves intact the fundamental spiritual link between the physical touch and the creation of new life in a way that contraception literally makes sterile and dead.
 
Natural Family Planning
Artificial Birth Control

Respect of a woman’s fertility
Objectifying women and reducing them to an object to be used on convience

Appoved by the Church
Disapproved by the Church
 
manualman said:
… And if they DO forget, God was smart enough to build in monthly reminders: the fertile time. Having to abstain during that time has a funny way of **making you look real hard at your ‘serious’ reason for avoiding more babies. It’s why I have three so far instead of two. And most of my NFP friends and family have had similar experiences. **NFP leaves intact the fundamental spiritual link between the physical touch and the creation of new life in a way that contraception literally makes sterile and dead.
Click to expand...
👍 (If I may, I’d like to include myself with those you know who have had similar experiences.) 🙂
 
maltmom said:
Welcome to CAF!

I think you answered your own question. You tell them that condoms put a barrier between husband and wife and their are not one flesh and that using condoms shows lack of trust and faith in God’s natural law. One flesh = direct skin to skin contact. Condoms show a lack of trust and faith in God that He knows when the timing is right for one to conceive.
Click to expand...
How does one go about if you are married to a partner who has Aids. Pregnancy can come about through Artificial insemination. But the Fact remains one can catch Aids off their Partner if a Condom is not used.
Is it OK to use a Condom under these Circumstances ?
 
1ke said:
Abstaining from sex and having altered sex are not the same thing.
Click to expand...
While I respect your posts, this is the wrong basis for comparison. Abstaining and having sex are not the same thing. Abstaining from sex while practicing NFP and abstaining from from sex while practicing contraception, or intentionally having sex during the infertile period and intentionally using contraceptives are valid comparison points. Comparing action with non-action confuses those trying to understand the issue.

There is no sin in not having sex, regardless of whether the couple contracepts or not.
 
bmonk said:
Perhaps this is why couples who depend on artificial contraception have about a 40% divorce rate, while those committed to NFP have about 2% divorce rates.

If there was a way to cut your chance on divorce by a factor of 20, would you take it?
Click to expand...
Sure, but NFP is what reduces the divorce rate. What reduces the divorce rate is the underlying moral foundation of the couple that use NFP to avoid pregnancy.

Do you really believe that if the atheist wife in a stressful marriage suddenly tells her atheist husband that he’s going to be having a whole lot less sex each month that there chances for divorce will decrease by a factor of 20?

The moral foundation must be there first and foremost, not only for the practice of NFP, but for everything else in and related to marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top