From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?

[Odell]

Why does the act feel better? From my experence I feel like I’m not using my wife and the act is more complete. An anology I use with prople who do contracept but are currently trying to have a child cannot not say that there is something different from the act of when you attemt to have a child vs the times you contracepted. No one can argue that there is that something there that was not before that makes the act feel more complete. Cannot quite put my finger on it. So I would like more help on possibly making this analogy better or from some of your own experiences. What make NFP better for you?

 

[ahs]

Contraception removes God from the picture by telling him “no”…essentially kicking Him out of the bedroom. Sex without contraception invites God in.

Contraception also removes the unitive and procreative aspects. It removes the unitive by preventing the total adn mutual self-giving of the spouses. It removes the procreative by actively preventing conception.

NFP brings the unitive aspect back to each act (only when used for “just reasons”) because there is now the total and mutual self-giving of the spouses (everything is there and offered fully) and it also brings in the procreative aspect because (although timing it makes conception less likely) everything is fully presented and the opportunity for conception is still there.

So, in my opinion, that is why contrcepted sex would not feel as good…because the fullness of the act cannot be experienced.

 

[Debora123]

It’s been the other way around for me

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t have experience with both by which to do a true comparison of feelings, but not entering into a state of mortal sin always feels better in my book.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium of the Catechism --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

**It is important to note in regards to experience:

Now can some experience a gravely evil action to be a “good experience”…certainly. Otherwise those who engage in a regular basis in such actions …would do something else. But is this truly good? No.

Contraception is an intrinsic evil. No good feeling or experience or intention can justify it.**

 

[Muze]

My sense with NFP is that we were violating God’s word in 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul says not to deny one another, except for a time of prayer. In effect, we’re denying each other for reasons that aren’t appropriate according to the bible.

 

[Bookcat]

My sense with NFP is that we were violating God’s word in 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul says not to deny one another, except for a time of prayer. In effect, we’re denying each other for reasons that aren’t appropriate according to the bible.

Such would be not correct.

See the above Teaching of the Church…

NFP is used to avoid only when there are serious reasons…and this is something that is usually an agreed upon …it is not “denying” one other. The “marital debt” remains in place even with NFP…though as we is understood in moral theology there can be exceptions to such…such as perhaps the health of one of the persons etc…

Oh I see now you are a protestant…so let me add a bit.

Paul is not giving an exhaustive list of legit reasons of abstaining…for example if say the wife was injured…and such would be hurtful to her…I would imagine Paul would say…of course I do not mean that there are not other reasons why they may agree to abstain…he is speaking of ordinary life …not some serious thing that comes along…and again NFP is not a denying …but an abstaining…by agreement. There are many reasons in life when a couple need to abstain…and wait for marital relations …even putting NFP to the side (like the kids have to sleep with them that night due to a bad dream etc)

 

[Muze]

umm…

1 Cor 7: 5 **Do not deprive each other **except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

The command is specifically DO NOT DEPRIVE… any exceptions given would be the exhaustive list of exceptions, and the qualifications are mutual consent, limited time, and for devotion to prayer. No other exceptions are given.

NFP is specifically depriving each other during a certain time of the month to avoid contraception. Not included in Paul’s exception list.

 

[Bookcat]

umm…

1 Cor 7: 5 **Do not deprive each other **except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

The command is specifically DO NOT DEPRIVE… any exceptions given would be the exhaustive list of exceptions, and the qualifications are mutual consent, limited time, and for devotion to prayer. No other exceptions are given.

Read above (not depriving …)…and Paul did not intend his letter to be an exhaustive list of various things that are going to interfere with ordinary life in this matter. He nor the only source of teaching etc.

 

[Muze]

Read above (not depriving anyone)…and Paul did not intend his letter to be an exhaustive list. He nor the only source of teaching etc.

Please show in the text where Paul says this isn’t an exhaustive list, or ANYWHERE else in the bible where this subject is broached.

If the command is DO NOT DEPRIVE, exceptions then have to be explicit, and Paul only lists one.

 

[TimothyH]

My sense with NFP is that we were violating God’s word in 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul says not to deny one another, except for a time of prayer. In effect, we’re denying each other for reasons that aren’t appropriate according to the bible.

The Church in her wisdom disagrees.

…except perhaps by mutual consent for a time…(1 Corinthians 7:4)

Mutual consent is not denial.

-Tim-

 

[Bookcat]

Please show in the text where Paul says this isn’t an exhaustive list, or ANYWHERE else in the bible where this subject is broached.

If the command is DO NOT DEPRIVE, exceptions then have to be explicit, and Paul only lists one.

Already explained.

 

[Bookcat]

And again…NFP is not a “depriving”

Paul is not giving an exhaustive list of legit reasons of abstaining…for example if say the wife was injured…and such would be hurtful to her…I would imagine Paul would say…of course I do not mean that there are not other reasons why they may agree to abstain…he is speaking of ordinary life …not some serious thing that comes along…and again NFP is not a denying …but an abstaining…by agreement. There are many reasons in life when a couple need to abstain…and wait for marital relations …even putting NFP to the side (like the kids have to sleep with them that night due to a bad dream etc)

 

[Debora123]

umm…

1 Cor 7: 5 **Do not deprive each other **except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.

The command is specifically DO NOT DEPRIVE… any exceptions given would be the exhaustive list of exceptions, and the qualifications are mutual consent, limited time, and for devotion to prayer. No other exceptions are given.

NFP is specifically depriving each other during a certain time of the month to avoid contraception. Not included in Paul’s exception list.

I have heard this before too, from other protestants. And according to this, you are right. Unless it is for prayer, a couple may not deprive each other.

However, the difference between Catholics and other Christians, is Catholics don’t take everything in the bible completely literally, and a lot of the things are interpreted differently for us by the Church. While protestants look at the bible as the main pillar of truth for all their answers, Catholics look at the Church for that.

I don’t think depriving sex from each other every month in order to avoid having children is wrong, but I don’t think certain forms of ABC are wrong either (which is unfortunately where I and most other Catholics differ from the Church). But I can at least see where you are coming from.

 

[Bookcat]

The passage from Pauls letter is not in reference to NFP (something that did not exist at the time)…which is something agreed upon by the spouses for a time and for serious reasons. It is not a depriving…the marital dept (the obligation to marital relations) remains in place.

The letter would be in reference to those who literally would deprive their spouse of marital relations…contrary to the nature of marriage and the obligations that are part of it.

Likewise it is not depriving a spouse if relations are forgone because the spouse is sick and such an act would be hurtful to them…or like I said the kids had bad dreams and are sleeping with them that night…Paul would not be having a problem with that…such is reason and according to Christian charity. (Nor would he have a problem with NFP)

 

[Blacksword]

It’s been the other way around for me

Agreed…I’m not going to belabor my own continuing questions about NFP, but as to the difference between marital relations when not trying to have a baby v. trying to become pregnant, the former at least meant feeling like your spouse was engaging in relations because they love you and desire sexual, physical, and emotional intimacy with you. The latter all too often feels like they just want the “job” done with, it’s reduced to a mechanical act, based not on actual desire, but instead the monitoring of ovulation cycles. THAT frankly feels like being used…a hilarious line from “Saving Silverman” comes to mind spoken by R. Lee Ermey, but I won’t repeat it here since it’s semi-vulgar in tone. Basically, YAY to natural, mutual, loving, and equally involved sex in marriage, BOO for “Ok, we have to do it now to make a baby so get on with it already!” sex. Very, very BOO.

I’m not ready to assent to every aspect of Humanae Vitae’s rules in the bedroom, but not saying I dissent from the whole thing either…

 

[Bookcat]

Sexual relations with Contraception are contrary to the love of marriage
and are simply not “marital relations”. In fact it is meaningless.
Even a couple who are not married can “feel” their sexual relations are good etc… Feelings are not the measure here.

cormacburke.or.ke/node/282

 

[Debora123]

Agreed…I’m not going to belabor my own continuing questions about NFP, but as to the difference between marital relations when not trying to have a baby v. trying to become pregnant, the former at least meant feeling like your spouse was engaging in relations because they love you and desire sexual, physical, and emotional intimacy with you. The latter all too often feels like they just want the “job” done with, it’s reduced to a mechanical act, based not on actual desire, but instead the monitoring of ovulation cycles. THAT frankly feels like being used…a hilarious line from “Saving Silverman” comes to mind spoken by R. Lee Ermey, but I won’t repeat it here since it’s semi-vulgar in tone. Basically, YAY to natural, mutual, loving, and equally involved sex in marriage, BOO for “Ok, we have to do it now to make a baby so get on with it already!” sex. Very, very BOO.

I’m not ready to assent to every aspect of Humanae Vitae’s rules in the bedroom, but not saying I dissent from the whole thing either…

Blacksword, the part I have bolded here is EXACTLY what happened with my husband and I, amongst other things as well. I couldn’t have said it better myself. While it works great for some people, (which is wonderful, and I envy those people) it just didn’t feel right for us. It put pressure on our lovemaking, and ultimately stress on our marriage.

 

[Chiltepin]

Why does it feel better?

It feels better because I know I’m not trying very hard to not have a baby.

Background: I’ve only been married about 3 months and I might not count as NFP. It has just occured to me as I post this that I see the term NFP and think ‘oh, non-contracepting, that’s me,’ but is it really NFP if you aren’t tracking things or paying much attention outside of the very inconsistent use of LH test strips?

 

[TimothyH]

I have heard this before too, from other protestants. And according to this, you are right. Unless it is for prayer, a couple may not deprive each other.

However, the difference between Catholics and other Christians, is Catholics don’t take everything in the bible completely literally, and a lot of the things are interpreted differently for us by the Church. While protestants look at the bible as the main pillar of truth for all their answers, Catholics look at the Church for that.

I don’t think depriving sex from each other every month in order to avoid having children is wrong, but I don’t think certain forms of ABC are wrong either (which is unfortunately where I and most other Catholics differ from the Church). But I can at least see where you are coming from.

While the Church teaches that one may not deprive the other, it also teaches that one may not demand from the other. Neither husband nor wife has the right to sexual intercourse on demand. One must have compassion and respect for the other’s emotional and physical state.

Yes, we have a right to sex within marriage, but sex is a gift of self, not something we can demand whenever we have the urge without regard to the other’ person’s state.

-Tim-