From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?

[Bookcat]

I admit that it is difficult to have a discussion with someone about events that happened millenia ago when they can’t remember what the said in the same day.

Thanks for backing me up.

It is very clear that I did not do as she noted. Nor did I see anyone else do so.

“Having someone compare me to a murder(er)for using condoms just further confirms my whole point anyway.”

I was discussing objectively grave actions …not comparing any person to any other.

 

[Bookcat]

Here is what I said in the post:

Yes…even murders can still be Catholics. But if they do not repent of their mortal sin…they are not living as Catholics…they are in grave danger of continuing in the death they have chosen. They are not living as Catholics. Not Living Catholics.

And even if there is some reason that their culpability is lessened to the point where subjectively they have not committed a mortal sin…they are still in very dangerous waters…and what they do is certainly not good for them or good at all (likewise any grave matter).

It is not just a rule like in some club one joins.

What you refer to is not a rule really at all.

One will not find such called that in any document of the Church.

It is a grave matter…that if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent…is a mortal sin.

It is an intrinsic evil. Even if someone chooses not to accept this reality.

Now…I know next someone will say "your comparing murder to contraception?! " …and I reply yes…they are both grave matters (oh and some forms kill too)…both snuff out the life of God within the soul of the person who does them with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Granted one can be in a way worse than the other …just as being a murderer-rapist is worse than being a murderer…but both are grave matters. Matters of life and death…and that is so beyond the physical sense.

Now…shall we be charitable and understanding in speaking with someone who is doing something that is objectively gravely sinful? Yes of course. Truth with Charity. As I have seen I think done in this forum. And many may have no clue…etc etc. Heck some who have been baptized Catholic simply were not given the actual teachings and life of the Church…but for one reason or another instead took on the thinking of the disordered culture around them. But even with someone who is yelling and throwing stones…the watchword is “truth with charity and charity with truth” (and perhaps the occasional ducking as the stones whirl over head).

 

[Bookcat]

Of course those outside the Church did not use contraception in the first centuries…yes they did all sorts of things…contraception, exposed their babies (murder), committed adultery, homosexual acts etc…which was not accepted by the Church…the early Christians condemned these things as ways of death…they lived very differently than the culture around them.

There are two ways. The way of death and the way of life.
*
And great is the difference between the two. *

 

[Bookcat]

Opps…

That should have read:

Of course those outside the Church did use contraception in the first centuries…yes they did all sorts of things…contraception, exposed their babies (murder), committed adultery, homosexual acts etc…which was not accepted by the Church…the early Christians condemned these things as ways of death…they lived very differently than the culture around them.

There are two ways. The way of death and the way of life.

And great is the difference between the two.

 

[ahs]

Debora123, you are right that some of my posts lack humility. I am working on that. My concern is genuine and I will strive to be more charitable, without out compromising Truth.

The same exact thing happened to me, sister. My husband and I did everything right in our lives and in our relationship prior to getting married. Unlike you though, we ended up using condoms during my fertile time - total abstinence (voluntary, that is) just isn’t for us and would never have worked.

I can empathize with that situation, but using condoms is specifically pointed out by the Church as gravely sinful. Surely there is some other alternative that you and your husband can use that isn’t contrary to the Catholic teaching? Or even periodic abstinence only during your fertile time…perhaps even all of Phase I and through Peak+4-6? If your charting was difficult to read with the NFP you were using, perhaps the Creighton Model will help…it is much more precise once you learn it properly. onemoresoul.com/ has some great resources that can be helpful.

I understand NFP can and does work well for a lot of people… and that’s great. More power to them! But for others it can have the opposite effect. Every marriage is different, every situation is different, every person is different. And to say that it is this amazing thing that will make ALL couples happy and closer to each other and have a more satisfying sex life and yadda yadda - is simply false.

I would encourage all married couples to at least try it, but after what it started to do to my marriage, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the couple ultimately decided against it.

Yes, NFP is alot of work and is a stress for marriages, and it won’t work perfectly for everyone. To start with, a couple really does need that “just cause”…otherwise resisting each other in the fertile period is nearly impossible and would be extremely stressful.

Also, there are more than just 1 NFP method, and not every method works for every couple. Most couples that I’ve read/heard about who had thrown in the proverbial towel on NFP wound up finding Creighton to be their saving grace. My wife and I use Couple-to-Couple League ourselves.

 

[sacredcello]

Sacredcello,

I really want to know how you have intellectually accepted NFP, since it sounds like you have heard the same arguments that I have. Do you simply take it as a matter of faith (nothing wrong with that at all)? Or do you practice it mostly because it’s healthier than hormonal birth control?

Does your husband agree with the Church teaching? Does he practice it only because that’s what you desire? Or for some other reason? Sorry, if these questions are too personal. I just want to see how another couple with these intellectual struggles have made it work while being faithful to the Church.

I really want to intellectually accept NFP, at least then I wouldn’t feel like I’m sacrificing my sex life for something I don’t really believe.

I am a convert from an Episcopalian background and my husband is a cradle Catholic whose parents were against Church teaching on holiness within marriage. So, it was not easy for either of us to intellectually accept NFP. However, it wasn’t a pressing topic for either of us. Both of us spent many, many adult years (decades) as single people because we wanted to pursue our career goals. My husband could have married earlier, but he did not feel ready for the vocation of marriage, which of course, includes children. He had not yet achieved tenure and that was a goal of his.

I, on the other hand, had been married to a Catholic and used birth control. Too long a story to go into here, but the marriage was a disaster, largely because we saw a childless marriage as our purpose while we pursued our career goals. But, marriage cannot be treated in that manner. We were definitely using each other.

After the marriage ended, and I received an annulment, I was able to study the teachings on holiness within marriage and I found them to be mind-blowing. TMI alert I had been sexually abused by my father as a child, and when I came across some of the writings published by CCL, such as Is NFP Good? by Father Hogan, I suddenly felt freed from all the anger about the abuse and came to a place of understanding about our disordered culture…that widespread acceptance of ABC has lead to widespread use and abuse. The last statement is my own understanding, not CCL. However, my life and the lives of my girlfriends who had been abused by their fathers/stepfathers now makes more sense to me and I can accept it with peace. One of my girlfriends who was abused died of AIDS. Incidentally, her abuser was married and had ready access to sex with ABC with his wife. I felt like I needed to become an NFP instructor once I was married so that people will know a method that is indeed 99% effective, so that the cycle of use and abuse does not continue. I want to be a part of building a civilization of love.

My husband graciously agreed to become an instructor with me. His reasons for practicing NFP are health reasons. He didn’t want me to be poisoned with pills, shots, IUD’s, or to risk the abortifacient potential of these methods. Also, he has never used a condom, but he has heard from others that it is not as pleasurable. Also, he doesn’t want to go near one of those things. I’m not sure if it is because of mortal sin, or if it is because he has remained a virgin for 48 years and doesn’t want to spot his chaste record, or what. That’s his personal thing, he doesn’t like to talk about it, but I know that’s how he feels.

But, as far as the philosophy goes, my husband has a resistance to the Theology of the Body and John Paul II’s earlier book, Love and Responsibility. He says he doesn’t understand the phenomenological language very well, just like he doesn’t understand other continental philosophers like Heidegger. I think that my husband’s faith and NFP vs. the analytical philosophy that my husband does professionally are just different areas and he is able to compartmentalize. His colleagues at the secular university where he works would find it hysterical if he were to write a paper about NFP. There are two lesbian (legally married in California) professors in his department, so he has to keep his faith separate from work. I’m sorry if that isn’t much help. Basically, I am more enthusiastic about NFP than my husband, but he sees many benefits to it, so that’s where we are. Also, we are trying to conceive now, so the hardships of trying to avoid are in the past for us.

Please do let me know if I can ever help with your chart, if you should choose to give it another whirl. I think you will find that, once your cycles return, your fertility signs are quite readable (aside from when you are sick and you may need to wait until P+4 or P+5 to be certain of Phase III).

God bless.

 

[ahs]

I utterly disagree. There is no way that I would place something that popped up in the 1850s that Christ never discussed in the same category as one of the Ten Commandments.

Furthermore, you can’t snuff out a life that didn’t exist. It has never been the Church’s position that life begins prior to conception. That type of thinking means that anyone that doesn’t have daily sex is snuffing out life.

The Church, from its very beginning has condemned contraceptive acts. It was well before the 1850’s that they condemned it. Nate13 did the favor of posting just a few of the Church teachings on contraception dating back to about the year 74 AD. I am only posting what he found prior to St. Augustine (since it is a rather large post).

Letter of Barnabas

Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, “Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness” (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

Clement of Alexandria

Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature (ibid. 2:10:95:3).

Hippolytus

[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion] (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 225]).

Lactantius

[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ‘generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring (ibid. 6:23:18).

Epiphanius

They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]).

John Chrysostom

[l]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet) and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization] (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]).

Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth?. . . Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and Fight with his [natural] laws? (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome

But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).

You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility [oral contraceptives] and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion] (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

 

[Nate13]

@ahs
yeah next time I see a post about how oral sex is no where in the Bible I’m going to put up that quote from the Letter of Barnabas. That book was not included in the Bible because of lack of knowledge of who exactly the author is for sure, as well as the fact that the author did not give much credit to the Jewish faith from which Christianity was born from. He had a much more negative view of the Jewish faith than all of the other author’s. However, many of the early churches considered this book the inspired word of God, and it was considered very highly until the 4th century when the books of the bible were established. Therefore while we cannot take it to be the inspired word of God, we can by no means discredit what is written especially since in no way does his view of oral sex contradict what the rest of scripture said. It falls completely in line with the established view of the Church and is proof that oral sex was talked about and condemned. It also adds substance to the believe that oral sex should be included when we see “sexual immorality” called out in other places in the Bible since we see hear at least one case very early on where this practice was condemned. He also by no means only talks about oral sex in a context outside of marriage, but rather oral sex as a whole.

 

[Warrior1979]

The Church, from its very beginning has condemned contraceptive acts. It was well before the 1850’s that they condemned it. Nate13 did the favor of posting just a few of the Church teachings on contraception dating back to about the year 74 AD. I am only posting what he found prior to St. Augustine (since it is a rather large post).

I really don’t want to derail this thread, but a simple reading of some of those quotes clearly contradict the Church’s current position. If that is the point, why is your position that is contrary what the Church teaches better than anyone else contrary position???

 

[Observer3]

People -

you just gotta take this stuff in and decide for yourself. There is no wrong answer, just as long as you are fine with the lifestyle you choose.

What IS wrong is telling people “God disapproves” of contraception, when we clearly don’t know this, and they have no proof, but just theories and faith. ABC has been a blessing for couples who have HIV. Like someone else said, every person is different, every marriage is different, every situation is different. I feel so sorry for people who make choices based on fear and end up with 5 children they didn’t really want.

 

[SwizzleStick]

People -

you just gotta take this stuff in and decide for yourself. There is no wrong answer, just as long as you are fine with the lifestyle you choose. …

Incorrect. What you state is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Catholics are bound by those teachings.

 

[ahs]

I really don’t want to derail this thread, but a simple reading of some of those quotes clearly contradict the Church’s current position. If that is the point, why is your position that is contrary what the Church teaches better than anyone else contrary position???

All of those quotes condemn contraception. There is nothing in those quotes that contradicts Church teaching. Since they are only small bits from larger works, it is easy to take them out of context as you apparently have. None the less, let’s have a look at a couple that I assume you are alluding to:

“…Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife…”

When a couples uses NFP, they adhere to that…they DO abstain. That’s why it’s called “periodic continence” or “periodic abstinence”. By the way, do you see anything there that suggests that contraception is an option?

“…for no other purpose than the generation of offspring…”

Which is why the Church says that each marital act must be “ordered per se to” procreation. The Church realizes that not every sex act will yield in conception because a wife is not fertile every day. But every time a couple has sex, they must order it per se to procreation.

These are not contradictory to NFP or to any Church teaching; they condemn contraception. Even as these statements against contraception were being made, the Church Fathers were also acknowledging the fact of the marital debt and that sex is permitted when conception is not possible as long as the act is ordered per se to procreation. The writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis De Sales, Pope Gregory I, Pope Pius XI, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI (just to name a few) all clarify for us the proper order of the marital act with a distinction between contraception and having sex on days when a wife is not fertile.

Further, can you or anyone else, point to one of those quotes, OR can you please provide some writing of the Church, that suggests that contraception, specifically, is a matter for personal conscious discernment? I believe the Church writings supporting periodic continence (NFP) have been provided already, but if not I am happy to post them for you.

 

[Warrior1979]

There is nothing in those quotes that contradicts Church teaching.

Before I provide examples, I’ll address this first:

When a couples uses NFP, they adhere to that…they DO abstain. That’s why it’s called “periodic continence” or “periodic abstinence”.

Abstinence is only part of it…the other part of it involves sex during the infertile period…unless you disagree with the Church’s position. People conveniently eliminate that part of it.

Letter of Barnabas

Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, “Thou shalt not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness” (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

Oral sex is clearly permitted under circumstances. In some cases, it is even recommended for woman, because it can increase the chances of pregnancy.

Clement of Alexandria

Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature (ibid. 2:10:95:3).

In other words, sex for pleasure and/or unitive purposes goes right out the window. Either this statement is incorrect or the Church’s current position is incorrect.

Hippolytus

[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, they use drugs of sterility [oral contraceptives] or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered [abortion] (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 225]).

So it’s okay to have concubines as long as one uses NFP?

Lactantius

[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

Abstaining does not equal sex during the infertile period. NFP includes both, and would therefore be prohibited.

God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ‘generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring (ibid. 6:23:18).

Sex for pleasure and/or unitive purposes is clearly prohibited by the above.

etc., etc., etc.

 

[ahs]

Before I provide examples, I’ll address this first:

Abstinence is only part of it…the other part of it involves sex during the infertile period…unless you disagree with the Church’s position. People conveniently eliminate that part of it.
Oral sex is clearly permitted under circumstances. In some cases, it is even recommended for woman, because it can increase the chances of pregnancy.
In other words, sex for pleasure and/or unitive purposes goes right out the window. Either this statement is incorrect or the Church’s current position is incorrect.
So it’s okay to have concubines as long as one uses NFP?
Abstaining does not equal sex during the infertile period. NFP includes both, and would therefore be prohibited.
Sex for pleasure and/or unitive purposes is clearly prohibited by the above.
etc., etc., etc.

You’re wrong on all of the above. Like I said, you took it all out of context. You are only placing your personal interpretation on the quotes. My explanation, in contrast, reflected the actual teaching of the Church where the purpose of the marital union has been clarified and explained for us, and is not contradicted in any by those quotes. That’s not my personal opinion, it’s the clarification provided by the Catholic Church. If I were a member of the “church of Warrior1979” I might give your interpretations some more consideration…but as it stands, I’m Catholic.

So, do you have a passage or quote yet that states that contraception, specifically, is a matter for personal discernment? Or was that conveniently left unaddressed?

 

[ahs]

You’re wrong on all of the above.

Oops…I meant to take out the part where you said that NFP involves periodic abstinence AND having sex on infertile days. You are correct on that…and the Church teaches that it is okay to have sex on infertile days…and none of those quotes contradict that unless you take them out of context, which you did.

So, do you have a passage or quote yet that states that contraception, specifically, is a matter for personal discernment? Or was that conveniently left unaddressed?

 

[Nate13]

Before I provide examples, I’ll address this first:
Abstinence is only part of it…the other part of it involves sex during the infertile period…unless you disagree with the Church’s position. People conveniently eliminate that part of it.

Oral sex is clearly permitted under circumstances. In some cases, it is even recommended for woman, because it can increase the chances of pregnancy.

Look again at the passage. It condemns the practice of oral sex with a women bringing a man to completion. It does not speak to the reverse.

In other words, sex for pleasure and/or unitive purposes goes right out the window. Either this statement is incorrect or the Church’s current position is incorrect.

Every act must be procreative. It doesn’t speak about the unitive aspect. Why the heck would it? How much effort does it take to make a sexual act with your spouse unitive? Do you have to really think about it, and try real hard? No. However making sure an act is procreative DOES require effort and thought. The Bible is also very clear how we should treat other people which includes our spouse and the unitive aspect is talked about here especially when we are told our marriages should mirror the marriage between Christ and his Church.

So it’s okay to have concubines as long as one uses NFP?
I think its pretty obvious from the tone that he is not only condemning the practice of the contraceptive practices of the concubines, but also the concubines themselves. I’m pretty sure he is point to them as an example and saying “do you want to be like them?” however I would like to see this in context.

Abstaining does not equal sex during the infertile period. NFP includes both, and would therefore be prohibited.
I believe it was abstain if you aren’t willing to have procreative sex. That is the underlying theme in all of these quotes. If sex isn’t procreative, its disordered, period. Now we can go back in and debate what procreative means if you want, but I believe that question has been answered multiple times. You are the one that continues to take it one step further and imply that since sex has to be procreative according to them, this implies that sex is only for procreation and there are no other benefits of sex. This is fundamentally flawed and I believe any honest person can see there is no evidence in these quotes to suggest this. If you have a quote that does, bring it here.

God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ‘generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring (ibid. 6:23:18).

 

[Nate13]

All of these quotes I posted are for the sake of understanding Gal 5:16-26. What did Paul mean when he said “impurity”? What did he mean by “sexual immorality”? What did he mean by “licentiousness” or “debauchery”? What did the word “pharmakeia” or “sorcery” actually mean in those days? These are the questions that we need answers to, because Paul tells us that these sins will keep us away from the Kingdom of Heaven. These are issues of the utmost importance. It also is important to know what “sorcery” meant to them at that time because of the implications of where this term is used in the Book of Revelation. While these quotes are not inspired scripture, they give insight into what these terms used in scripture mean. The Letter of Barnabas considered oral sex to completion for a man to be “impurity”. If so that gives meaning to where “impurity” is used in Galatians by Paul. The point is we should do as the Church has and take notice of “oral tradition” as we are told to do in the Bible. Looking back in history is one of the ways by which this is made possible.

 

[Warrior1979]

I’m not going to derail the thread any further. Start another thread if you wish.

I will just say my interpretations are correct based on the quotes provided. Either the quotes provided were taken out of context, your interpretations are based on preconceived notions, or both.

 

[Bookcat]

People -

you just gotta take this stuff in and decide for yourself. There is no wrong answer, just as long as you are fine with the lifestyle you choose.

What IS wrong is telling people “God disapproves” of contraception, when we clearly don’t know this, and they have no proof, but just theories and faith. .

There is a wrong answer…

We do know.

It is not a matter of opinion…nor of theory. It is the clear teaching of the Church.

 

[Bookcat]

This has been the constant teaching of the Church…from the early days…it is not a new thing.

As the document from the Church called the vademecum for confessors notes:

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” [Vademecum for Confessors 2:4,].

Yes unfortunately in 1930 among some Protestant Christians there was a change in some of their rejection…(they had rejected it…as had their leaders…since they began) and this has unfortunately gotten worse and worse with more forgetting what has been since the early days. But then again I think some have seen that this was the wrong move and have returned to the right understanding.

It has been rejected by Christians from the early days. Contrary to the action of the pagans in the surrounding “culture” at the time…such as the Roman culture…the early Christians rejected …contraception, abortion and the exposing of babies (murder), adultery, homosexual acts, the savage entertainment of the games, fornication, idolatry etc etc. The early Christians were a sign of contradiction in the midst of dark culture of death. Which in some ways is similar to the culture that surrounds us today.

The early Christians condemned these things as ways of death…they lived very differently than the culture around them. We too in the midst of a culture looking more like theirs…must do the same. We are to continue as they did…walking as children of light.

As an early Christian text put it:

There are two ways. The way of death and the way of life.

*And great is the difference between the two.
*