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

[Debora123]

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

What is the purpose of sex?

(Just waiting for you to answer it in your own words so I can further explain my confusion)

 

[Nate13]

What is the purpose of sex?

(Just waiting for you to answer it in your own words so I can further explain my confusion)

What is confusing about this explanation?

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

 

[vsedriver]

What is the purpose of sex?

(Just waiting for you to answer it in your own words so I can further explain my confusion)

Well you don’t need a lot of words to answer that question.

The natural law purpose of sex is procreation.

 

[Nate13]

Well you don’t need a lot of words to answer that question.

The natural law purpose of sex is procreation.

Read the quote above from the Catechism in my post:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

When it talks about the"Creator himself" this also refers to natural law. We know sex is meant to be procreative AND unitive based on natural law.

The disagreements occur when we consider this part:

These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

 

[hunter123]

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.).

There is no difference. You are right it is by definition birth control. You see the Church is after only one thing and that is CHURCH CONTROL. They want control over your mind, body and soul, and that includes your womb.

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.

Your right it is birth control by definition. But the Vatican is after CHURCH CONTROL. That means they want control of your body, mind and soul and even your womb!!

 

[Debora123]

Well you don’t need a lot of words to answer that question.

The natural law purpose of sex is procreation.

According to the Church the purpose of sex is to make babies and to bond with your spouse.
I see that. I don’t disagree with that.

However, this does not do a good job of explaining the topic of this discussion.

 

[Luvtosew]

**The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146 **

Sex is really pleasurable when one is worried about getting pg (inside a marriage I’m talking)

What are the limits of just moderation?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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 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.

Debora, even Jesus prayed in the garden before His crucifixion.

It isn’t something strange for the Vicar of Christ to pray for guidance while compiling an encyclical. He needs to be sure that it is authentic church teaching, not just his opinion. Maybe without guidance the teaching would have been more strict.

I don’t think God tells his spouse and guides his spouse one way, yet individual people get an individual revelation that goes against the teachings of the Church.

God is truth.

 

[vsedriver]

According to the Church the purpose of sex is to make babies and to bond with your spouse.
I see that. I don’t disagree with that.

However, this does not do a good job of explaining the topic of this discussion.

OK, I’ll go back on topic.

It is not ‘birth control’ if a couple uses timing and temp to prevent conceptions since timing and temperature do not prevent conception because timing and temp do not prevent the egg and sperm from meeting if they are both present, ie conception. Timing and temperature may reduce the chances of the ‘meeting happening’ but they don’t ‘prevent’ it.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

Even if a couple used the most selfish reasons possible for NFP, (say the wife thought the husband was too short and did not want a short baby, or the husband did not want children because he gambled and it would interfere with his gambling)

NFP use would still not be sinful per se’ the sin would be selfishness in the marriage, refusing marital contact etc, gambling away marital finances. The reasons for NFP could be sinful, but the act is not
.

On the other hand, contraception is always sinful, regardless of what the motives are. Even if the couple had the most grave reasons, contraception would not be allowed.

 

[Debora123]

Even if a couple used the most selfish reasons possible for NFP, (say the wife thought the husband was too short and did not want a short baby, or the husband did not want children because he gambled and it would interfere with his gambling)

NFP use would still not be sinful per se’ the sin would be selfishness in the marriage, refusing marital contact etc, gambling away marital finances. The reasons for NFP could be sinful, but the act is not.

Sure it would. It would be the couple’s ACTIONS to avoid procreation that would be sinful. Those actions would be in the form of using partial abstinence (NFP).

If they only HOPED they didn’t conceive, but did nothing to actively avoid conception, I highly doubt there would be much sin involved, if at all.

 

[Debora123]

OK, I’ll go back on topic.

It is not ‘birth control’ if a couple uses timing and temp to prevent conceptions since timing and temperature do not prevent conception because timing and temp do not prevent the egg and sperm from meeting if they are both present, ie conception. Timing and temperature may reduce the chances of the ‘meeting happening’ but they don’t ‘prevent’ it.

I’ve heard NFP being referred to as “birth control” here many times.

Of course, the posters then said it was a “licit” form of birth control, but it is still birth control nonetheless.

 

[Debora123]

Debora, even Jesus prayed in the garden before His crucifixion.

Correct, but I highly doubt his prayer involved asking what the right thing to do is. That’s a completely different nature of prayer.

We’re talking about praying ASKING God about a moral dilemma and what the right thing to do is. At least that’s what I thought we were referring to. Sorry if there’s been a misunderstanding.

 

[ahs]

Correct, but I highly doubt his prayer involved asking what the right thing to do is. That’s a completely different nature of prayer.

We’re talking about praying ASKING God about a moral dilemma and what the right thing to do is. At least that’s what I thought we were referring to. Sorry if there’s been a misunderstanding.

But is that really relevant here? We aren’t talking about trying to discern for ourselves if something is right or wrong…or at least we shouldn’t be. Sure, there are instances where we need to prayerfully contemplate whether something is right or wrong, true or untrue. But in this case, we have the answer, clear as day, given by God via the Church that He established:

NFP is not contraception. Contraception is an intrinsic evil. NFP is not, though a couple can use it out of selfishness rather than for just reasons…and would then be guilty of some sin…but not the sin of contraception.

This isn’t some opinion of a Pope, or a rule that the Church made up, it is the Truth of God and the Church has revealed it to us. Yes, it can be confusing and difficult to understand the ‘how’ and ‘why’, but that does not affect the basic Truth.

 

[vsedriver]

I’ve heard NFP being referred to as “birth control” here many times.

 

[ahs]

Your right it is birth control by definition. But the Vatican is after CHURCH CONTROL. That means they want control of your body, mind and soul and even your womb!!

Actually, no. The Church wants us all to rejoice in eternal glory with our Lord. She helps us get there by teaching us Truth and showing us how to live the life that Christ called us to live.

In regards to this specific topic, God gave us a marital union for a specific purpose, and has commanded us to use this gift for that purpose. Any use of this gift that thwarts the purpose is contrary to God’s Truth…contrary to God’s Natural Law, and is sinful.

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.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Sure it would. It would be the couple’s ACTIONS to avoid procreation that would be sinful. Those actions would be in the form of using partial abstinence (NFP).

If they only HOPED they didn’t conceive, but did nothing to actively avoid conception, I highly doubt there would be much sin involved, if at all.

No Deborah, it isn’t the sin of contraception. A celibate nun can chart her cycle.

Not having sex is how the pregnancy is avoided. A couple is not contracepting.

One final important point to note. If NFP is chosen wrongly, the wrongness lies in the fact that it is chosen without “good reason” and therefore usually selfishly. The sin here (presuming a person knows what he is doing and freely does it) is the sin of selfishness. (For a Catholic, it can also be the sin of disobedience to authoritative Church teaching.) But choosing NFP selfishly is not the same as contracepting. Strictly speaking, persons can only contracept if they also choose intercourse: a contraceptive act renders sterile an act of intercourse (recall the famous definition from “Humana Vitae,” No. 14: “Any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation — whether as an end or as a means.”); a contraceptive act always relates to some act of sexual intercourse; it is an act contrary to conception (literally contra-conception).

If there is no act of intercourse between a potentially fertile heterosexual couple, there is no potential conception to act contrary toward. Those who choose not to have intercourse, that is, choose abstinence (as NFP practitioners do when they want to avoid pregnancy), cannot act contrary to any conceptive-type of act, since they are specifically avoiding such acts. Therefore, those who choose NFP wrongly, although they do wrong, they do not do the same thing as those who contracept. Strictly speaking, they do not, indeed cannot, have a “contraceptive intention,” although their frame of mind might be characterized by what John Paul II called a “contraceptive mentality” (by which I take him to mean, a mentality that sees the coming to be of new life as a threat, something rightly to take measures against).

ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/zjustcause.HTM

 

[Debora123]

No Deborah, it isn’t the sin of contraception. A celibate nun can chart her cycle.

Not having sex is how the pregnancy is avoided. A couple is not contracepting.

ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/zjustcause.HTM

Lol I never said they were contracepting!! Haha, good lord folks!

(though i do have an opinion on that, i didn’t mention it)

All I said is that there are restrictions to the use of NFP to avoid. It can only be done licitly if the couple has just reason. I mean, do you not agree with that?? I honestly have no idea where all the commotion is coming from, considering I’m not saying anything against Church teaching on this matter.

 

[Debora123]

depends on what you mean by birth control. If you don’t have sex aren’t you also practicing birth control?

It is a licit form of birth control because you are allowed to not have sex.

Birth control doesn’t always mean contraception. The Church teaches contraception is a sin. You can’t put a barrier between the sperm and the egg. You can’t kill the fertilized egg during any stage of its development. You can’t prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall by artificially creating a hostile environment.

You can pick and choose when you have sex.

NFP aids in spacing out births but it is not contraception.

I never said anything about it meaning or not meaning contraception. I’ve hardly even mentioned the word “contraception,” nor talked about contraception this whole time! I was simply pointing out that people here have referred to it (NFP) as birth control and have admitted to it being birth control… on many threads, many times. Even apologists.

The only reason I pointed this out to you was because you explicitly said that it was NOT birth control. Which is false.

That is all.

…And thanks for the explanation, but I know what NFP is - I’ve used it.

 

[ahs]

Lol I never said they were contracepting!! Haha, good lord folks!

(though i do have an opinion on that, i didn’t mention it)

All I said is that there are restrictions to the use of NFP to avoid. It can only be done licitly if the couple has just reason. I mean, do you not agree with that?? I honestly have no idea where all the commotion is coming from.

The reason some of us keep bringing up the fact that NFP is not contraception is because there was some confusion from other posters earlier in the thread. There’s also been confusion on whether contraception is licit. Since that seems to be a common theme in all the NFP-related threads (the confusion of contraception vs. NFP) we are giving further clarification. It isn’t directed toward you, per se…at least that is my personal reason (you had asked earlier why I was going into all the detail).

Of coarse, you did suggest above that the “action” of avoiding conception by avoiding sex was sinful…at least that is how I understood that statement…that Mary Gail responded to. So, these clarifications can be good information for you as well.