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

[Bookcat]

Hey…again…it is **not **about “artificial” …nor is it so much about the words “birth control”.

Let us please use the term “Contraception”.

---

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.

 

[Luvtosew]

Two priests said that people who use artificial birth control as opposed to natural birth control would likely get abortions if they got pregnant by accident??

Haha, oh God help us all… how ridiculous!

Yes God help us all!

 

[Newbie2]

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

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

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

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

Children is the most important reason to get married. The Church recognizes there are other reasons, but all other reasons are subordinate to being able to welcome children into the World. The unitives purpose of sex and marriage goes hand in hand with having children.

First lets drop the ABC language. The term really to use is ** “contraceptives”**. (otherwise people think that them being “artificial” has anything to do with it.

I like the term “contracepted sex”. No mention of “natural” or “artificial”.

No. That is not what I am saying.

I am saying it is not a rule.

The discipline on eating meat on Fridays is a rule. We obey it as long as it is in force. The Church can change or abolish this rule at any time. It has changed throughout the Church’s history. It is not part of the divine law.

“Rule” and “law” aren’t synonyms?

Good Grief.

Why don’t we just say it is a teaching of the Church?

 

[Bookcat]

No. That is not what I am saying.

I am saying it is not a rule.

The discipline on eating meat on Fridays is a rule. We obey it as long as it is in force. The Church can change or abolish this rule at any time. It has changed throughout the Church’s history. It is not part of the divine law.

I would not call such a “rule” either. But a positive law. (Such Positive laws can be changed…unlike the divine law such as in terms of contraception…)

“Rules” are more for monopoly …

 

[Debora123]

Good Grief.

Why don’t we just say it is a teaching of the Church?

Haha, there we go.

Now no one can be picky when, heaven forbid, I use the word rule instead of law…

 

[Bookcat]

Haha, there we go.

Now no one can be picky when, heaven forbid, I use the word rule instead of law…

I can (as can others) …not be picky but rather point out what I did above.

Rules are for monopoly…

 

[rotlex]

Ok heres their rational behind it.

1. if one gets pregnant while using NFP its a unplanned pregnancy.
2. if one gets pregnat while using artificial birth control its unwanted pregnancy, which they feel will may lead to abortion.

Number 2 is the most ludicrous, ridiculous things I think I have ever read. Not that this whole thread, or every thread on this subject doesn’t come to the same end. The for and against. Bottom line folks. NFP IS contraception if that is what it is being used as. I’d garner a bet the 95% of the people on these forums touting it, and using it, are using it to avoid pregnancy. Same things as my wife and I using a barrier method of “contraception” to avoid pregnancy. It’s the same thing, whether you want to twist the words one way or the other.

I look at it this way. In my marriage, God knows our intentions. He knows my wife and I have been deeply in love for nearly 25 years. He knows we have been open to life, have, and are raising children in the faith. I don’t really think he cares how we are “spacing our births”, as long as we are not bringing harm to an unborn child through the use of some abortificant method of ABC.

Either way. Again, I have to say number 2 in the quote is ridiculous. I’ve heard it before, and frankly, I don’t think if someone has an unplanned pregnancy it matters what “method” they were using at all in determining whether or not they are going to have an abortion due to it.

For reference, yes, I am 110% Pro Life.

 

[Bookcat]

Number 2 is the most ludicrous, ridiculous things I think I have ever read. Not that this whole thread, or every thread on this subject doesn’t come to the same end. The for and against. Bottom line folks. NFP IS contraception if that is what it is being used as. I’d garner a bet the 95% of the people on these forums touting it, and using it, are using it to avoid pregnancy. Same things as my wife and I using a barrier method of “contraception” to avoid pregnancy. It’s the same thing, whether you want to twist the words one way or the other.

I look at it this way. In my marriage, God knows our intentions. He knows my wife and I have been deeply in love for nearly 25 years. He knows we have been open to life, have, and are raising children in the faith. I don’t really think he cares how we are “spacing our births”, as long as we are not bringing harm to an unborn child through the use of some abortificant method of ABC.

Either way. Again, I have to say number 2 in the quote is ridiculous. I’ve heard it before, and frankly, I don’t think if someone has an unplanned pregnancy it matters what “method” they were using at all in determining whether or not they are going to have an abortion due to it.

For reference, yes, I am 110% Pro Life.

I am very glad you are 110% prolife! However some of your thoughts here are not here correct.

NFP is not “contraception” ever.

As to the abortion aspect…I think the point is that those who are living according to the Teachings of the Church and thus using NFP to space children for serious reasons are not likely to “abort” them if one should come along anyhow (for …they are living according to Teachings of the Church…). Their use of NFP is very open to life. Where as those who use contraception are more likely (than those who use NFP) to commit the abortion in their “contraception” fails…

God does care how you “space births”…very much so.

Note too that “intentions” never make an intrinsically evil action like the use of contraception good. Never. God set it up this way.
So He understand this very well.

 

[Luvtosew]

Number 2 is the most ludicrous, ridiculous things I think I have ever read. Not that this whole thread, or every thread on this subject doesn’t come to the same end. The for and against. Bottom line folks. NFP IS contraception if that is what it is being used as. I’d garner a bet the 95% of the people on these forums touting it, and using it, are using it to avoid pregnancy. Same things as my wife and I using a barrier method of “contraception” to avoid pregnancy. It’s the same thing, whether you want to twist the words one way or the other.

I look at it this way. In my marriage, God knows our intentions. He knows my wife and I have been deeply in love for nearly 25 years. He knows we have been open to life, have, and are raising children in the faith. I don’t really think he cares how we are “spacing our births”, as long as we are not bringing harm to an unborn child through the use of some abortificant method of ABC.

Either way. Again, I have to say number 2 in the quote is ridiculous. I’ve heard it before, and frankly, I don’t think if someone has an unplanned pregnancy it matters what “method” they were using at all in determining whether or not they are going to have an abortion due to it.

For reference, yes, I am 110% Pro Life.

Hey I agree, I was just stating what I heard two priest say on EWTN since the one other poster kept asking for a rational so I told her one I heard, .

The use of NFP, the Holy Father notes, promotes self-discipline and chastity, whereas artificial contraception “could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.” The explosion of the divorce rate and the extensive recourse to abortion as a backup to contraception since the promulgation of Humanae Vitae are only two of the reasons that Pope Paul VI has been regarded as a prophet. There is also the danger that a husband might come to regard his wife as “a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires,” since artificial contraception removes any need to be aware of his wife’s biological cycles.

Maybe they got it from the above statement.

 

[ahs]

…NFP IS contraception if that is what it is being used as. I’d garner a bet the 95% of the people on these forums touting it, and using it, are using it to avoid pregnancy. Same things as my wife and I using a barrier method of “contraception” to avoid pregnancy. It’s the same thing, whether you want to twist the words one way or the other.

This in incorrect.

Contraception is the removal of the procreative nature of a sexual act that is taking place.

NFP is the avoidance of that marital act.

You can’t remove the procreative nature of an act that is not taking place.

 

[rotlex]

This in incorrect.

Contraception is the removal of the procreative nature of a sexual act that is taking place.

NFP is the avoidance of that marital act.

You can’t remove the procreative nature of an act that is not taking place.

NFP is not the avoidance of the marital act. NFP is a natural method of avoiding pregnancy, by having sexual relations during the times the woman is not fertile. What I meant in my original post is that there is no difference in the sin being committed whether using NFP or ABC if the person using either is doing it to avoid pregnancy completely. (Assuming you believe it is sin for a married couple to engage in sexual acts that are not geared toward pro-creation. For reference on that, I do NOT believe it to be sin).

I’m not trying to sound snarky to the other posters, but these forums tend to not show emotion well. What I’m getting at is in all these threads, the preachers come out and tout NFP as if it is somehow OK as opposed to other methods. I know what Church teaching is on the subject, and frankly, I think they are wrong. If NFP is acceptable to God, then so are other methods of birth control so long as they do not harm an unborn child should that method fail. To tell one’s self other than that is to be playing with words, meaning and just kidding yourself.

 

[Bookcat]

NFP is not the avoidance of the marital act. NFP is a natural method of avoiding pregnancy, by having sexual relations during the times the woman is not fertile. What I meant in my original post is that there is no difference in the sin being committed whether using NFP or ABC if the person using either is doing it to avoid pregnancy completely.

1. NFP is a different animal than Contraception.
2. NFP is not contraception…ever.
3. NFP can be not only not any sin…but actually the concommitent exercise of virtue.
4. Whereas the use of contraception is an objectively gravely sinful act.
5. With contraception the act “ceases also to be an act of love”.

 

[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.

 

[ahs]

NFP is not the avoidance of the marital act. NFP is a natural method of avoiding pregnancy, by having sexual relations during the times the woman is not fertile. What I meant in my original post is that there is no difference in the sin being committed whether using NFP or ABC if the person using either is doing it to avoid pregnancy completely. (Assuming you believe it is sin for a married couple to engage in sexual acts that are not geared toward pro-creation. For reference on that, I do NOT believe it to be sin).

Yes, a couple using NFP can have sex when the wife is not fertile. All married couples can have sex when the wife is not fertile. The desire to not want to get pregnant is not the sinful part. The sin is the purposeful removal of the procreative nature of an act that is naturally ordered toward procreation.

Contraception removes the procreative nature from an act that is taking place…an act that is naturally ordered toward procreation. Contraceptive acts are not open to procreation.

NFP, if done properly, does not involve any removal of the procreative nature from any act. Even acts that are engaged in outside the fertile time are still ordered toward the procreative nature because each act is completed in the natural manner. In this way, each act is open to procreation, even if the couple does not desire procreation at that time. That does not mean the act will be procreative, but it must still be ordered per se toward procreation.

 

[Newbie2]

NFP is not the avoidance of the marital act. NFP is a natural method of avoiding pregnancy, by having sexual relations during the times the woman is not fertile. **What I meant in my original post is that there is no difference in the sin being committed whether using NFP or ABC if the person using either is doing it to avoid pregnancy completely. **(Assuming you believe it is sin for a married couple to engage in sexual acts that are not geared toward pro-creation. For reference on that, I do NOT believe it to be sin).

I’m not trying to sound snarky to the other posters, but these forums tend to not show emotion well. What I’m getting at is in all these threads, the preachers come out and tout NFP as if it is somehow OK as opposed to other methods. I know what Church teaching is on the subject, and frankly, I think they are wrong. If NFP is acceptable to God, then so are other methods of birth control so long as they do not harm an unborn child should that method fail. To tell one’s self other than that is to be playing with words, meaning and just kidding yourself.

…and to be in opposition to Church teaching.

You seem not to understand the reasoning behind the teaching that contraception is a sin.

 

[rotlex]

…and to be in opposition to Church teaching.

You seem not to understand the reasoning behind the teaching that contraception is a sin.

Actually, I completely understand it.

My point is, I don’t agree with it. Why is that so hard for people in threads like this to understand? Whenever anyone posts comments or thoughts such as mine, most people respond with quotes from the Catechism, the rule books, whatever.

In a nutshell, TO ME - Using NFP is NO different than using ABC if the persons intent is the same - to NOT get pregnant. Anyone that tells themselves differently is kidding themselves. But then again, the holier than thou on these forums seem to know more than any priest, bishop, spiritual advisor or other religious I have spoken with on this, and many other subjects. The keyboard warriors of truth, justice and the way of the Church.

My wife and I have two children. We have been married a very long time. We love each other today as much as we did when we said our vows. God knows this. He has given us a wonderful marriage and blessed us in very many ways. I do not honestly believe that He believes it to be sin if we use ABC. Why do I believe this? I prayed to Him and asked Him about it OFTEN. He always answers my prayers, and guides me in the right direction. I"ll take His Word for it.

As a side note. I’m not really sure why I post in these threads, or on these forums for that matter, when it puts me way to near occasion of sin. (Tend to get angry quickly even though I mean not to).

With all that said - Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Actually, I completely understand it.

My point is, I don’t agree with it. Why is that so hard for people in threads like this to understand? Whenever anyone posts comments or thoughts such as mine, most people respond with quotes from the Catechism, the rule books, whatever.

In a nutshell, TO ME - Using NFP is NO different than using ABC if the persons intent is the same - to NOT get pregnant. Anyone that tells themselves differently is kidding themselves. But then again, the holier than thou on these forums seem to know more than any priest, bishop, spiritual advisor or other religious I have spoken with on this, and many other subjects. The keyboard warriors of truth, justice and the way of the Church.

My wife and I have two children. We have been married a very long time. We love each other today as much as we did when we said our vows. God knows this. He has given us a wonderful marriage and blessed us in very many ways. I do not honestly believe that He believes it to be sin if we use ABC. Why do I believe this? I prayed to Him and asked Him about it OFTEN. He always answers my prayers, and guides me in the right direction. I"ll take His Word for it.
As a side note. I’m not really sure why I post in these threads, or on these forums for that matter, when it puts me way to near occasion of sin. (Tend to get angry quickly even though I mean not to).

With all that said - Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all!

With all due respect, I beleive the Popes spent a great amount of time in prayer when compiling Casti Conubbi and Humanae Vitae. God decided to give them a totally different answer than he decided to give you?

Say a woman does not want children, so she decides to remain single and chaste. Another woman does not want children, she gets her tubes tied, and lives a promiscuos life.

Are these two actions are the same, because the intention to not have children is the same?

With NFP to avoid a couple gives up sex. It won’t work unless they give up sex. There is only a 6 day window of fertility every month.

They don’t force the infertility, it just happens because of the design in a woman.

The same way that the meterologist did not cause the rain today. He just determined with high accuracy that today would rain, I decide whether to go out or not. If I go out, I’ll probably get rain on me, If I stay home, I’ll stay dry.

I guess I “contraweathered.”

 

[Luvtosew]

Actually, I completely understand it.

My point is, I don’t agree with it. Why is that so hard for people in threads like this to understand? Whenever anyone posts comments or thoughts such as mine, most people respond with quotes from the Catechism, the rule books, whatever.

In a nutshell, TO ME - Using NFP is NO different than using ABC if the persons intent is the same - to NOT get pregnant. Anyone that tells themselves differently is kidding themselves. But then again, the holier than thou on these forums seem to know more than any priest, bishop, spiritual advisor or other religious I have spoken with on this, and many other subjects. The keyboard warriors of truth, justice and the way of the Church.

My wife and I have two children. We have been married a very long time. We love each other today as much as we did when we said our vows. God knows this. He has given us a wonderful marriage and blessed us in very many ways. I do not honestly believe that He believes it to be sin if we use ABC. Why do I believe this? I prayed to Him and asked Him about it OFTEN. He always answers my prayers, and guides me in the right direction. I"ll take His Word for it.

As a side note. I’m not really sure why I post in these threads, or on these forums for that matter, when it puts me way to near occasion of sin. (Tend to get angry quickly even though I mean not to).

With all that said - Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all!

Well you found one person who will admit that I agree with you, and I also know the Churches stance on it. and I agree that NFP is no different. I also feel there are many Catholics that use birth control other than NFP but most won’t admit it.

 

[Debora123]

With all due respect, I beleive the Popes spent a great amount of time in prayer when compiling Casti Conubbi and Humanae Vitae. God decided to give them a totally different answer than he decided to give you?

Say a woman does not want children, so she decides to remain single and chaste. Another woman does not want children, she gets her tubes tied, and lives a promiscuos life.

Are these two actions are the same, because the intention to not have children is the same?

With NFP to avoid a couple gives up sex. It won’t work unless they give up sex. There is only a 6 day window of fertility every month.

They don’t force the infertility, it just happens because of the design in a woman.

The same way that the meterologist did not cause the rain today. He just determined with high accuracy that today would rain, I decide whether to go out or not. If I go out, I’ll probably get rain on me, If I stay home, I’ll stay dry.

I guess I “contraweathered.”

My guess would be that rotlex feels he cannot take account for someone elese’ praying on the subject… even if that is the pope. However though, he CAN take account for his OWN personal praying and responsibilities as a husband and father.

Also, does every new pope review and pray about all the subjects in humanae vitae and the CCC to make sure “God tells them” they are all spot on correct? It would seem like they wouldn’t really need to, considering it’s already supposed to be infallible teaching anyway, but perhaps I’m wrong.

I guess in this case it would have to come down to trusting the FIRST pope that prayed for this and declared it an infallible teaching.

 

[sw85]

In a nutshell, TO ME - Using NFP is NO different than using ABC if the persons intent is the same - to NOT get pregnant.

So? The intent is NOT the sole measure of the goodness of an act. This Church’s ethical system is nonconsequentialist: good intentions cannot justify inherently evil acts.

The MEANS and the END are important as well. A deficiency in ANY of these areas qualifies an act as disordered. And when a disordered act is committed with full knowledge of its disorder and full consent, it qualifies as a sin.

Anyone that tells themselves differently is kidding themselves. But then again, the holier than thou on these forums seem to know more than any priest, bishop, spiritual advisor or other religious I have spoken with on this, and many other subjects. The keyboard warriors of truth, justice and the way of the Church.

The plain text of the Catechism is right there for everyone to see. You don’t need to have taken holy orders to know what is and isn’t proscribed.

You also don’t need to have taken holy orders to know that NO ordained person can alter the Church’s teachings or grant exceptions from them. Hence any ordained person who says you may use contraception freely is either ignorant or lying (and given the education they have to go through to become ordained, it is more likely the latter) – and is in any case failing in his duty to tend to the spiritual needs of his flock.

My wife and I have two children. We have been married a very long time. We love each other today as much as we did when we said our vows. God knows this. He has given us a wonderful marriage and blessed us in very many ways. I do not honestly believe that He believes it to be sin if we use ABC.

What you believe on this, frankly, doesn’t matter. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from error – not you.

Please repent of your error, go to confession, and refrain from receiving the body of Christ until you have done so. I say this out of concern for your soul, for as long as you are taking communion while rejecting communion with the Church, you are effectively perjuring yourself before Christ.

Why do I believe this? I prayed to Him and asked Him about it OFTEN. He always answers my prayers, and guides me in the right direction. I"ll take His Word for it.

This is *naked *Protestantism.

As a side note. I’m not really sure why I post in these threads, or on these forums for that matter, when it puts me way to near occasion of sin. (Tend to get angry quickly even though I mean not to).

You should not be getting angry. Your inability to understand a particular teaching does not give you license to disregard it. Those who remind you that you have a duty to obey ecclesiastical authority (a duty related to us both by the apostle Paul and by Christ Himself) are doing their duty and looking out for your own spiritual good. If you repay them with anger, you are doing them an injustice and injuring your own soul in the process.

Incidentally, though, I agree with you that I don’t know why I post in these threads, either. By and large even the ones like this, in which the OP posts in good faith trying to understand a difficult and widely-hated (and widely-disregarded) teaching, quickly degenerate into open displays of rebellion, Protestantism, and heresy. It’s not as if ONE MORE thread on contraception is going to make any lightbulbs click on, anyway.