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

[Debora123]

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.

With all due respect, I’d like to add that there’s a little bit more to NFP than just the innocent “giving up sex.”

The couple does everything in their power to figure out the exact fertile days of the woman’s cycle and then purposely have sex *only on the days that they know will not result in procreation.
*

If it really was as innocent as saying that all NFP is is “giving up sex,” then there wouldn’t be restrictions on it. But alas, there are.

Just figured I’d point that out.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

Of course they do. They pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Pope Paul spent a great amount of time in prayer before the blessed sacrament when compiling Humane Vitae. He just didn’t tell the secretary, “Write this down, I’m in the mood to control people’s sex lives”

He needed to address a growing schism of people thinking the Pill was not a contraception and that the Church could somehow allow it.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

With all due respect, I’d like to add that there’s a little bit more to NFP than just the innocent “giving up sex.”

The couple does everything in their power to figure out the exact fertile days of the woman’s cycle and then purposely have sex *only on the days that they know will not result in procreation.
*
If it really was as innocent as saying that all NFP is is “giving up sex,” then there wouldn’t be restrictions on it. But alas, there are.

Just figured I’d point that out.

Sorry that is silly. Everything in their power?

I’ve practiced NFP for 8 years, the only thing I need to do is check when I’m going to the bathroom. Then we abstain when I’m fertile.

That’s one of the reasons people use contraceptives, why give up sex?.

That’s the reason I was upset when my husband suggested NFP. “We have to give up sex? Don’t you want to be with me?” I never thought of it as “Yippee, I figured out a way to have sex without getting pregnant” I already knew how to do that through contracpetion.

We* are *giving something up. It’s like being on a diet while working in a gourmet bakery.

You need just cause (the restriction on NFP). I dont think If the cause were not just a couple could do it long term. (unless they did not like each other for some reason)

 

[Debora123]

Of course they do. They pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Pope Paul spent a great amount of time in prayer before the blessed sacrament when compiling Humane Vitae. He just didn’t tell the secretary, “Write this down, I’m in the mood to control people’s sex lives”

He needed to address a growing schism of people thinking the Pill was not a contraception and that the Church could somehow allow it.

I see. Thanks for the response.

What I am still confused about though, is that this (the fact that each pope prays to “confirm” that all the teachings are accurate) is kind of like rotlex praying about it too. If it’s infallible, 100% fail proof, then why would someone need to make those types of prayers? And if a pope in the future prays for it and gets the same response as rotlex… well then what then?

 

[Debora123]

Sorry that is silly. Everything in their power?

I’ve practiced NFP for 8 years, the only thing I need to do is check when I’m going to the bathroom. Then we abstain when I’m fertile.

That’s one of the reasons people use contraceptives, why give up sex?.

That’s the reason I was upset when my husband suggested NFP. “We have to give up sex? Don’t you want to be with me?” I never thought of it as “Yippee, I figured out a way to have sex without getting pregnant” I already knew how to do that through contracpetion.

We* are *giving something up. It’s like being on a diet while working in a gourmet bakery.

You need just cause (the restriction on NFP). I dont think If the cause were not just a couple could do it long term. (unless they did not like each other for some reason)

Yes, everything in their power to distinguish the fertile days vs the infertile days.

Before, it was just counting days. (Rhythm method). Now it’s counting days, taking temperatures, checking cervix, checking mucous, checking hormone levels, buying expensive NFP machines, taking classes… There are countless methods that can be used, and a couple uses the one that they feel is going to be most accurate for them. So yes, they do everything in their power to learn the cycle as accurately as possible. Are you disagreeing with that? Do most people actually purposely leave some info out to unsure that they didn’t “do everything in their power” to know the cycle?

And yes, you do need just cause to use NFP to avoid - that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. There are restrictions to it because it isn’t as innocent as “just giving up sex.” It avoids procreation - and you need just reasons to do that.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yes, everything in their power to distinguish the fertile days vs the infertile days.

Before, it was just counting days. (Rhythm method). Now it’s counting days, taking temperatures, checking cervix, checking mucous, checking hormone levels, buying expensive NFP machines, taking classes… There are countless methods that can be used, and a couple uses the one that they feel is going to be most accurate for them. So yes, they do everything in their power to learn the cycle as accurately as possible. Are you disagreeing with that? Do most people actually purposely leave some info out to unsure that they didn’t “do everything in their power” to know the cycle?

And yes, you do need just cause to use NFP to avoid - that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. There are restrictions to it because it isn’t as innocent as “just giving up sex.” It avoids procreation - and you need just reasons to do that.

Weather forecasting has advanced as well, there are satellites etc. A person still decides to go out or not.

So what if NFP is complicated (there aren’t countless methods just a handful) the couple still decides each time to be intimate, and when they are intimate they do not alter the act.

That is the sin, altering the sex act to make it infertile. Having infertile sex is not a sin.

 

[ahs]

And yes, you do need just cause to use NFP to avoid - that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. There are restrictions to it because it isn’t as innocent as “just giving up sex.” It avoids procreation - and you need just reasons to do that.

The “just cause” or “grave reason” or “serious reason” is because couples are supposed to be open to creating life. That is what marriage is for…for having children (not solely…but it’s the primary natural end of marriage). That is why a couple needs a just reason to use NFP.

As has been mentioned already, the sin is not in birth regulation or in desiring not to procreate for a time, the sin is in removing the procreative nature frmo an act.

NFP - During the fertile time, and act is not taking place…you can’t remove the procreative nature from and act that is not taking place. During the infertile time, the couple is free to enjoy the marital embrace and when they do, they must do it in the natural manner and be open to the possibility that conception may result.

Contraception - A couple has sex and removes the procreative nature of an act. That is where the sin is. An act that is naturally ordered toward procreation is thwarted by the removal of the procreative nature of that act.

There is nothing wrong with a couple wanting to regulate births or space children for just reasons. There is something intrinsically evil in removing the procreative nature of an act that is taking place when that act is naturally ordered toward procreation.

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]

What I am still confused about though, is that this (the fact that each pope prays to “confirm” that all the teachings are accurate) is kind of like rotlex praying about it too. If it’s infallible, 100% fail proof, then why would someone need to make those types of prayers? And if a pope in the future prays for it and gets the same response as rotlex… well then what then?

It will never happen as it would undo the infallibility of previous Popes and no Pope will do that. Also that change would put a hole in other teachings of the Church.

I was wondering what you mean when you said

It avoids procreation - and you need just reasons to do that.

Can you tell me what the just reasons not to use NFP would be…

 

[ahs]

Can you tell me what the just reasons not to use NFP would be…

Each couple must discern for themselves if they have just reasons to avoid pregnancy. And that decision is discerned continuously and carefully.

You don’t need just reasons to not use NFP.

If you mean, just reasons to use ABC rather than NFP, there are none. Contraception is never permitted, for any reasons…
54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. (Casti Conubii)

And you are correct, that a Pope will never change that Doctrine of the Church. Not because it might make him look bad or punch holes in other teachings, but because the Church is free from error because Christ has established Her in that way. The Holy Spirit protects Her from error and protects the Pope from error when teaching a Truth of the Faith.

 

[Nate13]

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.

I thought about typing this up myself…but the Catechism just does such a good job of it Pay close attentions to the parts I highlighted in red.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

I’m sorry if you hate getting quotes from the Catechism, but this quote isn’t just some list of rules and regulation. This is the fundamental philosophy of how good and evil are determined. It’s not worth discussing anything else until we agree on this philosophy on how to approach determining the difference between good and evil acts.

 

[Debora123]

Weather forecasting has advanced as well, there are satellites etc. A person still decides to go out or not.

So what if NFP is complicated (there aren’t countless methods just a handful) the couple still decides each time to be intimate, and when they are intimate they do not alter the act.

That is the sin, altering the sex act to make it infertile. Having infertile sex is not a sin.

I did not comment on whether NFP as a whole is or is not a sin, neither did I mention contraception.

I was just simply adding to your earlier post that, once again, there’s more to the whole nature of the method than “just not having sex.” (Saying such can be misleading.)

That’s why there is a restriction of needing appropriate reasons to do so. You do agree with that, no? If yes, then we are on the same page here.

 

[TarkanAttila]

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.

HOLD IT A MINUTE…

The bolded area is the area of contention. IN NO WAY does NFP totally prevent conception. Even if that was the intent of the couple, it would be sinful because the Church teaches that we should still be open to life. NFP does make it less likely conception will occur.

BUT in no way does it inhibit the sperm from reaching the ovum, or the fertilised egg from implanting on the uterine wall when fertile. If that happens, a couple is still responsible for the child, and they ought to know this.

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?

1. That’s not using everything in their power. There’s condoms. There’s the pill. There are sponges, spermicidal creams, etc. NFP is fairly good at reducing the chances of pregnancy. But it does not prevent pregnancy; it makes it less likely (but still definitely possible).

But if mentally a couple is thinking “I want to avoid children because I don’t want another child/ I just want to have fun/ I don’t want any responsibilities/ etc., and since I can’t use condoms or pills to do so, I will use NFP to do so”, the Holy See doesn’t approve of that because that attitude is not open to God’s will, not is it open to Christ.

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.).

We don’t allow certain natural plants to be used, either, though, because either they prevent sperm from reaching the ovum, or they are abortifacients. NFP is not a barrier or spermicide, nor is it an abortifacient, and therefore it does not impede the natural proceedings of things. If sperm does make it into the uterus, and it meets an egg, THE WOMAN WILL BECOME PREGNANT. When using NFP, the couple is basically leaving it up to God, but they choose times which are less conducive to conception, BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

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.

There are basically three kinds of contraception: barrier methods (which prevent the sperm from reaching the uterus, like condoms and sponges), spermicides (which kill sperm before it can implant into an ovum; sponges may contain these), hormone modifiers (which either IIRC cause a woman not to drop an egg, or which weaken the uterine lining so the egg has nothing to attach to, or which flush out embryos). These actively modify the condition in which conception occurs, whether by modern chemicals or ancient herbal abortifacients and spermicides.

In NFP, the couple takes no action to actively prevent contraception, chemically or physically. How is it contraception when a couple has sex with no chemical or physical inhibitors, but only at a certain time of the year, or when a woman or man’s body is a certain temperature?

 

[Debora123]

The “just cause” or “grave reason” or “serious reason” is because couples are supposed to be open to creating life. That is what marriage is for…for having children (not solely…but it’s the primary natural end of marriage). That is why a couple needs a just reason to use NFP.

As has been mentioned already, the sin is not in birth regulation or in desiring not to procreate for a time, the sin is in removing the procreative nature frmo an act.

NFP - During the fertile time, and act is not taking place…you can’t remove the procreative nature from and act that is not taking place. During the infertile time, the couple is free to enjoy the marital embrace and when they do, they must do it in the natural manner and be open to the possibility that conception may result.

Contraception - A couple has sex and removes the procreative nature of an act. That is where the sin is. An act that is naturally ordered toward procreation is thwarted by the removal of the procreative nature of that act.

There is nothing wrong with a couple wanting to regulate births or space children for just reasons. There is something intrinsically evil in removing the procreative nature of an act that is taking place when that act is naturally ordered toward procreation.

Thank you.

Although I did not mention any of the above. I simply stated that according to Catholicism, just reasons are required for NFP practice of avoidance to be licit. Don’t you agree? I think we are all on the same page there, so why all the discussion?

 

[Debora123]

It will never happen as it would undo the infallibility of previous Popes and no Pope will do that. Also that change would put a hole in other teachings of the Church.

EXACTLY. Which is precisely why I was confused by Mary Gail’s comment that each pope does indeed pray for this “confirmation” of teachings.

I was wondering what you mean when you said

It avoids procreation - and you need just reasons to do that.

Can you tell me what the just reasons not to use NFP would be…

I meant that the Church teaches we are only allowed to licitly use NFP to avoid conception when there are just reasons to do so. Ahs did a good job in explaining what a “just reason” would be. Ultimately it depends on each individual family.

 

[Luvtosew]

EXACTLY. Which is precisely why I was confused by Mary Gail’s comment that each pope does indeed pray for this “confirmation” of teachings.

Yes I agree there is no need for a Pope to have to pray about it again.

I meant that the Church teaches we are only allowed to licitly use NFP to avoid conception when there are just reasons to do so. Ahs did a good job in explaining what a “just reason” would be. Ultimately it depends on each individual family.

So that is up to the married couple to decide , that sounds good to me.

 

[Nate13]

So that is up to the married couple to decide , that sounds good to me.

Haha I’m truly amazed how you have been so critical of a teaching that you didn’t even know about in any detail throughout this thread. You came in with all guns blazing based on assumptions about what the Church taught that came from who knows where. Might it be more productive if you found out what you disagreed with, before you disagreed with it?

 

[Luvtosew]

Haha I’m truly amazed how you have been so critical of a teaching that you didn’t even know about in any detail throughout this thread. You came in with all guns blazing based on assumptions about what the Church taught that came from who knows where. Might it be more productive if you found out what you disagreed with, before you disagreed with it?

Read my other posts! and you will see what I think, I am glad they don’t at least have restrictions on NFP in a marriage. I find nothing wrong with birth control in marriage.
Oh I know what the Churches teaching is on birth control also.

 

[vsedriver]

The Church does not require children out of a marriage

Do you mean in marriage. I’m sure you must. Well a couple gets married and don’t want to have kids for whatever reason, I know some, what is wrong with a vasectomy as long as they are faithful?

I see nothing wrong with that, or the pill where one doesn’t ovulate, or tubal ligation,
I’m sorry but I know many Catholics including myself that have used some form of the above, that surely doesn’t give anyone a liscense to cheat.

Sex is holy when it is within the covenant of marriage and open to life. If you are not open to life then you can’t have sex even if you are married. You don’t have the right to enjoy the pleasures of sex while blocking the God created purpose of sex.

I realize the Catholic Church is trying to look out for people best interest, but I think they should concentrate on chasity before marriage and faithfullness when married.

What makes you think the Church doesn’t concentrate on chastity before marriage or faithfulness when married?

 

[Nate13]

Read my other posts! and you will see what I think, I am glad they don’t at least have restrictions on NFP in a marriage. I find nothing wrong with birth control in marriage.

There are restrictions it is just left up to the couple to decide if their circumstances meet them. Serious physical, psychological, or financial reasons can be just reasons for using NFP. It is up to the couple to determine prayerfully whether their situation meets this and they have a just reason to avoid. It is also quite possible though that a couple may have serious financial problems, but still feel called by God to be open to allowing another child in their life. Using NFP is also permissible to allow for reasonable spacing of children, but that kind of ties in with the physical/psychological reasons for choosing to use NFP. Some women are ready to have another kid 1 year after and others just aren’t there physically and emotionally to be able to do that. The Church recognizes that all women are not the same.

I don’t think the reasons for using some form of birth control are where the real disagreements are. The real disagreement is in what are the permissible methods of achieving it.

For instance lets say you need to pay for a surgery for a loved one. You can either steal the money or you can get a second job to pay for it. Your intentions in trying to help your loved are good and the end result of helping him/her is good, but your means or the circumstances surrounding how you went about it are wrong.

This is the place we find ourselves at now with the discussion of contraception.

 

[vsedriver]

Correct. :yup:

I know all about these sex/contraception/abstinence/birth-control rules like the back of my hand… I just don’t understand the rationale behind them.

so you don’t understand the rational about being open to life because that is the purpose of sex?