How is it not "birth control" if a couple uses timing and temp to prevent conception?

[Bartolome_Casas]

Birth control by using pills and condoms is deemed a sin by the Catholic Church.

Yet, sexually active married couples are allowed to use their full intellectual and physical powers to aim to TOTALLY PREVENT conception by carefully tracking body temperature and the timing of the woman’s cycle.

If a couple is doing EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to prevent conception from sexual intercourse, and are using a VERY RELIABLE method (such as Natural Family Planning, also called NFP), how then are they meeting the Catholic standard that every act of sexual intercourse must be OPEN TO LIFE?

It seem as though, for some inexplicable reason, the Church forbids **ARTIFICIAL **birth control at all times NO MATTER what the MOTIVE may be for using it, but allows **NATURAL **birth control when the MOTIVE is LICIT (to limit family size due to economic pressures, etc.).

Why doesn’t the Church simply say that any safe and healthy form of birth control is okay for married couples as long as it used only when the MOTIVE is LICIT?

Singling out birth control methods that are “artificial” (barrier or chemical) just doesn’t make sense to me.

Yes, I do know that pharmaceutical forms of birth control come with many health risks. But as I understand it, the health risks have NOTHING to do with why the Catholic Church forbids the artificial forms of birth control.

Shouldn’t an important teaching which affects billions of adults in a vital way MAKE SENSE to those adults?

Can anyone show me how this Church teaching, this FORBIDDING artificial birth control in all circumstances, but permitting natural birth control in some circumstances, makes sense?

I AM not trying to dissent or criticize, but UNDERSTAND, honestly COMPREHEND! I am a learner, not a rebel. I am a student. Be my teacher. But please make sense.

 

[Rence]

Birth control by using pills and condoms is deemed a sin by the Catholic Church.

Yet, sexually active married couples are allowed to use their full intellectual and physical powers to aim to TOTALLY PREVENT conception by carefully tracking body temperature and the timing of the woman’s cycle.

If a couple is doing EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to prevent conception from sexual intercourse, and are using a VERY RELIABLE method (such as Natural Family Planning, also called NFP), how then are they meeting the Catholic standard that every act of sexual intercourse must be OPEN TO LIFE?

Because of the nature of the way NFP works. When a couple is using NFP to space out or prevent pregancies, they are to abstain from sex when the woman wants it the most. This takes discipline and places a burden on many couples, that they otherwise wouldn’t place on themselves — otherwise they would just share the marital embrace. In this way, the reason for abstaining would have to be important because it is a difficult time for many many couples.

Also, keep in mind that being ‘open to life’ is accepting any pregancies that might result despite wishes to not conceive. Many couples are open to life despite using NFP to avoid pregnancy.

It seem as though, for some inexplicable reason, the Church forbids **ARTIFICIAL **birth control at all times NO MATTER what the MOTIVE may be for using it, but allows **NATURAL **birth control when the MOTIVE is LICIT (to limit family size due to economic pressures, etc.).

Because in order for sex to be licit, the Church requires two properties to be present: 1) the unitive property and the 2) procreative property

The Church teaches that by using any chemical or physical barrier, such as hormone therapy (chemical) or condoms (physical barrier), the unitive property that is required is no longer present. The Church also teaches that the procreative property is still present despite using NFP because ovulation is not being hindered or frustrated in any unnatural way.

NFP allows the couple to enjoy the marital embrace without interfering with the ‘untive’ or the ‘procreative’ properties that the Church requires.

Why doesn’t the Church simply say that any safe and healthy form of birth control is okay for married couples as long as it used only when the MOTIVE is LICIT?

Because according to Church teaching, ‘any safe and healthy form of birth control’ would interfere with the unitive properties that they require.

Singling out birth control methods that are “artificial” (barrier or chemical) just doesn’t make sense to me.

It doesn’t make sense to a lot of people, but those are the rules of the Church.

Yes, I do know that pharmaceutical forms of birth control come with many health risks. But as I understand it, the health risks have NOTHING to do with why the Catholic Church forbids the artificial forms of birth control.

You’re right, the Church doesn’t forbid ABCs due to the potential health risks. They forbid ABCs because they remove the required unitive property that the Church requires.

Shouldn’t an important teaching which affects billions of adults in a vital way MAKE SENSE to those adults?

Not all teachings are going to make sense or ‘click’ at all times.

Can anyone show me how this Church teaching, this FORBIDDING artificial birth control in all circumstances, but permitting natural birth control in some circumstances, makes sense?

Nope. I can only explain to you the Church’s rationales for allowing NFP but forbidding any other natural form of birth control… sorry…

I AM not trying to dissent or criticize, but UNDERSTAND, honestly COMPREHEND! I am a learner, not a rebel. I am a student. Be my teacher. But please make sense.

Well, I don’t know if what I posted above made sense to you or not, but hopefully, it will answer some of your questions.

 

[ahs]

A couple using timing and temps to avoid conception is not actively preventing conception, they are actively abstaining. The goal may be the same…not get pregnant. But in the one case, contraception, the couple is engaging in sex and thwarting the procreative nature of an act. On the other hand, NFP, a couple is not engaging in an act.

ETA: Also, with NFP, when a couple DOES engage in the act, that act is ordered toward the natural end of procreation because, during that act, nothing is done to thwart the procreative nature of that act (no barriers, drugs, etc… ).

 

[Nate13]

Birth control by using pills and condoms is deemed a sin by the Catholic Church.

Yet, sexually active married couples are allowed to use their full intellectual and physical powers to aim to TOTALLY PREVENT conception by carefully tracking body temperature and the timing of the woman’s cycle.

“Birth control” or controlling birth is not sinful in and of itself. NFP is a form of “birth control”. Condoms are sinful because they seek to make a fertile act, infertile. In doing so it denies the obvious nature of ourselves. The pill works likewise indirectly to attempt to prevent fertility from even occurring in the first place. Depending on the time of month, each act of sex varies in degree of fertility. A couple using NFP never attempts to change the way God has designed our bodies and if they choose to have sex while fertile, they accept it.

Consequentially it may outwardly appear there is little difference between NFP and contraceptives. However the same can be said when comparing when a older person near death who is allowed to die “naturally” as opposed to be euthanized. The ends appear the same, but the means used to get to each end are very different. The question that should be asked is why can people recognize the sinful nature of euthanasia, but not the sinful nature of contraception?

If a couple is doing EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER to prevent conception from sexual intercourse, and are using a VERY RELIABLE method (such as Natural Family Planning, also called NFP), how then are they meeting the Catholic standard that every act of sexual intercourse must be OPEN TO LIFE?

I admit people have used the phrase “open to life” to describe NFP in many ways that are not true. NFP objectively is no more open to life than contraceptives and has every possibility to be misused in a way that puts in on the same field as contraception. I do believe it could be said though that NFP lends itself to helping a couple take an attitude that is more open to life. Part of practicing NFP is that you have to abstain from sex for a time each month, and many people find this to be somewhat of a challenge. This can help inspire a discussion about why the couple is trying to prevent a child, and whether those are just reasons. This can lead to a couple being more “open to life”.

Let me get this straight though for you: there are just reasons for trying to prevent having a child. This intention in and of itself is not wrong. The true objective difference between contraception and NFP is the means, just as the true objective difference between allowing someone to die naturally and euthanizing them is the means by which each is achieved. Someone could have incredibly good intentions in euthanizing someone such as to try and allow someone to escape incredible pain. However the act would still be wrong because of the means used to get there.

It seem as though, for some inexplicable reason, the Church forbids **ARTIFICIAL **birth control at all times NO MATTER what the MOTIVE may be for using it, but allows **NATURAL **birth control when the MOTIVE is LICIT (to limit family size due to economic pressures, etc.).

Why doesn’t the Church simply say that any safe and healthy form of birth control is okay for married couples as long as it used only when the MOTIVE is LICIT?

If the Church allowed contraception based on this line of thinking, it would also make euthanasia acceptable. It should come as know surprise though that the push to allow euthanasia is ever increasing and more and more people and beginning to jump on board. Its another on those things that is starting to gain serious traction in “enlightened” Europe.

Singling out birth control methods that are “artificial” (barrier or chemical) just doesn’t make sense to me.

Your right it is. Think of it in terms I have discussed above. NFP is artificial in the sense that it uses a thermometer and possibly other artificial aids however it can be said to be natural in the sense that it works with how our bodies naturally perform. The same cannot be said for any of the contraceptives usually considered to be “artificial”. Do you see the difference? The pill works to change the way our bodies work and make women effectively barren whenever they want to be. A condom works so effectively, its like a man never ejaculates when he orgasms. Contraceptives seek to fundamentally change the way our bodies work.

Yes, I do know that pharmaceutical forms of birth control come with many health risks. But as I understand it, the health risks have NOTHING to do with why the Catholic Church forbids the artificial forms of birth control.

Shouldn’t an important teaching which affects billions of adults in a vital way MAKE SENSE to those adults?

It most certainly should make sense and its incredibly frightening that it doesn’t for so many people. However a lot of the reason it doesn’t is because people don’t even attempt to try and figure it out. Keep in mind though that this teaching used to make sense to a vast majority of people, just like euthanasia and abortion being wrong used to be a no brainer. It will take time and patience to reiterate the reasoning, but we will win the battle just as we are winning the battle on abortion and bringing people back to reason.

Can anyone show me how this Church teaching, this FORBIDDING artificial birth control in all circumstances, but permitting natural birth control in some circumstances, makes sense?

I AM not trying to dissent or criticize, but UNDERSTAND, honestly COMPREHEND! I am a learner, not a rebel. I am a student. Be my teacher. But please make sense.

Has my post helped to shed some light on this teaching for you at all?

 

[1ke]

Who said *birth control *was immoral? Hint: Not the Church.

Contraception is an immoral *means *of birth control. Abstaining is not.

 

[1ke]

how then are they meeting the Catholic standard that every act of sexual intercourse must be OPEN TO LIFE?

That is not the “standard.” The Church’s actual teaching is that each act of intercourse must be ordered to procreation.

If the act of intercourse is a completed act of vaginal intercourse, it is ordered to procreation. This is true both when the woman is fertile, and when she is naturally infertile. Periods of natural infertility for a woman include: certain observable times of the month, post menopause, during pregnancy, when naturally sterile due to disease or defect. It is not sinful to engage in a completed act of intercourse at any of these naturally infertile times.

It seem as though, for some inexplicable reason, the Church forbids **ARTIFICIAL **birth control at all times NO MATTER what the MOTIVE may be for using it, but allows **NATURAL **birth control when the MOTIVE is LICIT (to limit family size due to economic pressures, etc.).

This is not correct. The Church make a no distinction between “artificial” and “natural.” *Contraception *is immoral, abstaining is not.

Why doesn’t the Church simply say that any safe and healthy form of birth control is okay for married couples as long as it used only when the MOTIVE is LICIT?

Because that statement is false.

Singling out birth control methods that are “artificial” (barrier or chemical) just doesn’t make sense to me.

The Church does not do so.

.

Shouldn’t an important teaching which affects billions of adults in a vital way MAKE SENSE to those adults?

It makes perfect sense. If you have a serious reason to avoid a pregnancy you may abstain completely or you may abstain periodically. Every time you engage in intercourse it must be as God designed (i.e. ordered) it: complete and unaltered.

Simple.

Can anyone show me how this Church teaching, this FORBIDDING artificial birth control in all circumstances, but permitting natural birth control in some circumstances, makes sense?

Well, the Church doesn’t teach that.

Contraception is wrong because it disorders the act of intercourse.
Abstaining from intercourse is not immoral because it does not disorder the act.

 

[Thankfulness]

I don’t know if you realize it but many forms of contraception are actually abortifacients.
They cause the death of a baby.

The pill included. "The Pill contains two synthetic hormones, progestin and ethinyl estradiol and has three mechanisms: 1) it prevents ovulation, 2) thickens the cervical mucus, which makes it harder for sperm to enter the uterus and 3) affects the endometrium or lining of the womb to make it more hostile to implantation. This means the tiny developing baby (embryo) cannot attach to the uterine lining and dies, which is a very early abortion. Even so, they define this as “preventing pregnancy.”

“The IUD or intrauterine device is available in two different types in America. The hormonal IUD called Mirena, and the copper IUD called Paragard. Mirena releases levonorgestrel, which is a progestogen. **Its primary function is to prevent implantation by the tiny developing human **(embryo).”

lifeissues.org/abortifacients/index.html

 

[Nate13]

Well, the Church doesn’t teach that.

Contraception is wrong because it disorders the act of intercourse.
Abstaining from intercourse is not immoral because it does not disorder the act.

Exactly, abstaining means there is not even an act there to attempt to disorder.

I’d also like to add that a lot of people seem to have this notion that NFP is like the Church’s legalistic way of cheating the system. NFP is no more a legalistic way of cheating the system, than allowing the natural death of someone with cancer is instead of euthanizing them and preventing all the pain and suffering that person would have to go through.

Is it legalistic to say someone has to wait a week to die a natural death, rather than being allowed to inject a little poison and make it happen a bit quicker to save some pain and suffering for everyone involved?

Consequentialism is the greatest threat to society today in my opinion.

 

[po18guy]

So, is a spouse then practicing birth control when they are too tired to engage in marital union? What if they are sick?

Birth control is something that you do actively to prevent conception, not something you refrain from. Birth control is closed to life, whereas NFP is open to it.

 

[JRKH]

The simplest answer to this title is that they are not “preventing” pregnancy they are “avoiding” it.
In other words, there is no barrier to impregnation in the marriage act. The marriage act is simply “Avoided” during certain times…Doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Peace
James

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

Actually, I just read a relevent passage in my new Missal. In a section for examining one’s conscience before confession, in regards to the sixth and ninths Commandments, married people are exhorted to ask themselves:

“Did I…with the intention of avoiding conception, make use of marriage only on days when offspring would not likely be engendered?” (Daily Roman Missal, page 2346, published by Midwest Theological Forum)

It is fairly clear that the Church teaches that sex is for making children; trying to circumvent that–artificially or “naturally”–is sinful.

Yours in Christ,
Michael

 

[1ke]

Actually, I just read a relevent passage in my new Missal. In a section for examining one’s conscience before confession, in regards to the sixth and ninths Commandments, married people are exhorted to ask themselves:

“Did I…with the intention of avoiding conception, make use of marriage only on days when offspring would not likely be engendered?” (Daily Roman Missal, page 2346, published by Midwest Theological Forum)

It is fairly clear that the Church teaches that sex is for making children; trying to circumvent that–artificially or “naturally”–is sinful.

Yours in Christ,
Michael

An examination of conscience written by (whoever) is NOT official Church teaching and that particular examination of conscience directly contradicts both Casti Conubii AND Humanae Vitae.

It is “fairly clear” that your assessment is mistaken.

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

An examination of conscience written by (whoever) is NOT official Church teaching and that particular examination of conscience directly contradicts both Casti Conubii AND Humanae Vitae.

It is “fairly clear” that your assessment is mistaken.

On the publication page of the book–the page with the Library of Congress data, publisher’s address, copyright info, etc–the following is printed “Published with the approval of the Committee on Divine Worship, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

I used the word “fairly” because it’s a synonom to “mostly” or “not entirely.” It does not mean “dogmatic” or “canonical.” But we’re being pointed in that direction; get married, then make babies. To consciencly seek to get around the rules speaks to one’s desire and intention to actually break the rules. Or are you under the impression that the USCCB just missed that part about what does or doesn’t violate Church teaching? Or that maybe they just decided to let it slide? Or, better yet, that they completely got it wrong?

Yours in Christ,
Michael

 

[Jesus_123]

+Actually . . . there is an incredibly beautiful . . . *and profound *. . . revelation of a holy husband and wife abstaining . . . for a good and just reason . . . in the extraordinary . . . **Holy Book of Tobit in the Old Testament ** . . . which passage of **Sacred Scripture **is quoted below . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
THE HOLY :bible1: BIBLE
Tobit 6:11-22

[11] And the **angel ** :angel1: answering, said: Here is one whose name is Raguel, a near kinsman of thy tribe, and he hath a daughter named Sara, but he hath no son nor any other daughter beside her. [12] All his substance is due to thee, and thou must take her to wife. [13] Ask her therefore of her father, and he will give her thee to wife. [14]

Then Tobias answered, and said:

*I hear that she hath been given to seven husbands, and they all died: moreover I have heard, that a devil killed them. [15] Now I am afraid, lest the same thing should happen to me also: and whereas I am the only child of my parents, I should bring down their old age with sorrow to hell. *

[16] Then the angel :angel1: Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. [17] For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.

[18] But thou when thou shalt take her, go into the chamber, and for three days keep thyself continent from her, and give thyself to nothing else but to prayers with her. [19] And on **that night **lay the liver of the fish on the fire, and the devil shall be driven away. [20] But the **second night **thou shalt be admitted into the society of the holy Patriarchs. [21] And the **third night **thou shalt obtain a blessing that sound children may be born of you. [22] And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.
​

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

81
Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

Article 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE

104
In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it ** not** as human word, **“but as what it really is, the **
Word of God.”

In the sacred books,
the Father who is in heaven
comes lovingly to meet his children,
and talks with them.

:bible1: “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b​

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[Nate13]

On the publication page of the book–the page with the Library of Congress data, publisher’s address, copyright info, etc–the following is printed “Published with the approval of the Committee on Divine Worship, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

I used the word “fairly” because it’s a synonom to “mostly” or “not entirely.” It does not mean “dogmatic” or “canonical.” But we’re being pointed in that direction; get married, then make babies. To consciencly seek to get around the rules speaks to one’s desire and intention to actually break the rules. Or are you under the impression that the USCCB just missed that part about what does or doesn’t violate Church teaching? Or that maybe they just decided to let it slide? Or, better yet, that they completely got it wrong?

Yours in Christ,
Michael

Can you post the online link to that passage if you find it? I think the passage actually makes sense to have in there though. Using NFP can be a sin if done for the wrong reasons and it makes sense to have it in an examination of conscience to reflect on whether a person truly has just reasons for abstaining.

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

Can you post the online link to that passage if you find it? I think the passage actually makes sense to have in there though. Using NFP can be a sin if done for the wrong reasons and it makes sense to have it in an examination of conscience to reflect on whether a person truly has just reasons for abstaining.

Unfortunately, they aren’t legally available online because in the U.S., those printed words belong to the publisher; not to mention, I can’t even find an illicit link.

However, you seem to have the gist of what I was saying, that to think to one’s self “Well, we can’t use ‘the pill’ or condoms…but I know a way around it! Haha! Take that, prohibitions against contraception!” is the wrong frame of mind to be in.

Yours in Christ,
Michael

 

[Debora123]

Singling out birth control methods that are “artificial” (barrier or chemical) just doesn’t make sense to me.

Welcome to the club…

 

[Bookcat]

It is not about “artificiality” or “non-artificiality”…

And “contraception” is the key term really…not “birth control”…

**
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

 

[twoangels]

Answer: Couples are not required to intend to get pregnant. They are perfectly free to have sex whenever they want. They are perfectly free to abstain from sexual activity. They are perfectly free to abstain specificially to pregnant pregnancy. They are perfectly free to know their bodies well to minimize their days of abstainence.

NFP spaces and limits the size of families through abstainence. They cannot substitute other sexuals acts. Every sexual act when done must be oriented toward procreation. You have to accept the procreative nature of sexuality if you’re going to engage in it.

Contraceptives is a way of indulging the desire for sexual pleasure while orienting the sexual acts away from procreation. So the difference is contraceptive couples are abstructing the act while NFP couples are abstaining.

 

[Havard]

Every sexual act when done must be oriented toward procreation. You have to accept the procreative nature of sexuality if you’re going to engage in it.

Contraceptives is a way of indulging the desire for sexual pleasure while orienting the sexual acts away from procreation.

^

Precisely. The sin is turning sex into a non-procreative act, which fundamentally twists it from its purpose and disrespects it.