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

[Luvtosew]

NFP uses natural body functions. The woman isn’t always fertile, its a natural occurrence. You just take advantage of the body’s natural cycle. ABCs force the body into a state that is unnatural. Also there is no abortion going on. With pills for example, the egg is fertilized, but because of hormones it doesn’t attach to the uterus and fails to continue the process. With NFP, because the woman is not fertile, then there is no fertilization. No life is created.

I understand the physiology , but there are different kinds of pills and most of the time ovulatin does not does not take place, and yes it does change the lining just in case(just to clarify) and I understand how thel ABC’s change the body ( hormones or physcially) except for NFP.

what I don’t understand if why they go in such long wording in the Cathechism as if trying to justify their standing and it just makes it so confusing the way they word stuff.

the bottom line is to write it out like the 10 commandments, because even with the justification behind their standing on it, I don’t believe it will matter to people, some Catholics will follow whatever the Church says, and others will not on such matters anyway.

So I do understand the Popes decision on this as I also understand he has great accountablility for his decisions, and apparently he decided with what he felt was best through his prayers and in his heart.

So atlas, I understand why Pope John Paul had to pray hard on this due to the advent of the pill and that,
but in the future I don’t think another Pope will have to. I mean it is now pretty much set in stone.

I certaintly don’t know better than the Pope or the Church, it is what it is.

 

[ahs]

…So I do understand the Popes decision on this as I also understand he has great accountablility for his decisions, and apparently he decided with what he felt was best through his prayers and in his heart.

So atlas, I understand why Pope John Paul had to pray hard on this due to the advent of the pill and that,
but in the future I don’t think another Pope will have to. I mean it is now pretty much set in stone…

This line of thought is not representative of the Truth of how Divine Law is revealed to the Church…or how Doctrine is ‘established’, for lack of a better term at this moment. Perhaps you may consider starting a new thread to help you understand this topic…where Church Doctrine comes from…and maybe then you will begin to understand the Doctrine on contraception and the conjugal union.

 

[Nate13]

I understand the physiology , but there are different kinds of pills and most of the time ovulatin does not does not take place, and yes it does change the lining just in case(just to clarify) and I understand how thel ABC’s change the body ( hormones or physcially) except for NFP.

what I don’t understand if why they go in such long wording in the Catechism as if trying to justify their standing and it just makes it so confusing the way they word stuff.

The Church’s stance on contraception has little to do with the fact that the pill can be harmful. Even if the pill executed its purpose perfectly without any side effects it would still be wrong. We are fortunate however that the side effects of the pill make it much easier for people to turn down the pill.

The wording in the Catechism is the short handed justification for the teaching. If you want to read the entirety of it you need to read the Theology of the Body, Love and Responsibility, Humane Vitae, and Casti Canubbi for a start. I quote the Catechism because it already has a great answer to many of your questions. I’m not quoting the Catechism as a way to be like “see the Catechism says it so you have to follow it”. I’m quoting it to give you what the Church teaches right from its own mouth and because it does provide a great starting explanation for many of its teachings.

 

[Luvtosew]

Thanks everyone, but I understand the churches stand on it, don’t need to read anymore of the whys. Really its black and white. the more complicated something is made the more it opens it up for debate,

like Obamas health care plan.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The reasons for doing something and then the doing it go hand in hand. If you have a bad reason for doing something and you do it anyway, then having done it becomes sinful. If you have a bad reason for doing something but then you DON’T do it, there is usually no sin involved.

Anyway, this whole thing is getting kind of petty I think, and that’s probably my fault. All I meant to say was that there are restrictions to NFP use when used to avoid procreation. It can only be done if there is just cause. I think we both agree with that, so to continue in this route has become a bit pointless, IMHO.

I won’t dwell on it after this but think of it this way.

Grandma is wealthy. Grand child A. visits Grandma weekly, becuase he likes to spend time with Grandma.

Grand child B. Visits grandma weekly because he wants a part of the inheritance.

The action of visiting grandma is a good thing. It isn’t sinful to visit grandma. The reasons for doing so become the sin.

NFP use is not sinful because it isn’t a sin to observe your cycle, it isn’t a sin to abstain from sex when it is mutual, and it isn’t a sin for a married couple to have sex on an infertile day.

The reasons could be sinful, (like grandchild B visiting the grandmother because he wants an inheritance) but those specific actions cannot be sinful per se’.

I’m not in the least trying to be petty, just trying to explain the teaching clearer. Sorry if I came across as petty.

 

[ahs]

…Anyway, this whole thing is getting kind of petty I think, and that’s probably my fault. All I meant to say was that there are restrictions to NFP use when used to avoid procreation. It can only be done if there is just cause. I think we both agree with that, so to continue in this route has become a bit pointless, IMHO.

I dont’ think that is altogether a fair statement…and it leaves out a fair bit of fact. You actually have 10 posts( #'s 17, 49, 65, 70, 75, 104, 125, 130, 131, 150) in this thread where you showed some confusion on the teaching of contraception/birth control/artificial methods, or were statements of a lack of understanding of the rationale behind the teachings.

So, saying that “All I meant to say was that there are restrictions to NFP use when used to avoid procreation” isn’t really true.
And saying that is is petty or pointless isn’t fair to those who are trying to respond to those posts…not just for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who share your confusion and also want clarification…yet instead of posting their own question/confusion, they are just reading the responses to your posts.
Given the number of views this thread has, it is not a far stretch to assume that there are many who want to see the explanations given.

 

[Bookcat]

To give a summary in a few sentences.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

497. 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.

498. 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

 

[Debora123]

I dont’ think that is altogether a fair statement…and it leaves out a fair bit of fact. You actually have 10 posts( #'s 17, 49, 65, 70, 75, 104, 125, 130, 131, 150) in this thread where you showed some confusion on the teaching of contraception/birth control/artificial methods, or were statements of a lack of understanding of the rationale behind the teachings.

So, saying that “All I meant to say was that there are restrictions to NFP use when used to avoid procreation” isn’t really true.
And saying that is is petty or pointless isn’t fair to those who are trying to respond to those posts…not just for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who share your confusion and also want clarification…yet instead of posting their own question/confusion, they are just reading the responses to your posts.
Given the number of views this thread has, it is not a far stretch to assume that there are many who want to see the explanations given.

That statement was in reference only to the particular discussion I was having with another poster specifically in regards to licit use of NFP. I had no confusion on that.

 

[Newbie2]

My point is, I don’t agree with it.

As a side note. I’m not really sure why I post in these threads, or on these forums for that matter…

I’m not sure either, when you admittedly reject church teachings on this matter.

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.

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.

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.

This is *naked *Protestantism.

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.

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.

Yep. I think it’s important to use proper terminology in these matters:

Birth control=any method used to control births, including abortion.

Licit birth control=NFP (only)

Let’s make it simple: Contracepted sex is immoral.

 

[Christopher68]

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!

The above post is excellent, IMHO. To me it comes across very honestly and humbly, and likely reflects what many Catholics feel about this topic.

There is another aspect of the “unitive” versus “procreative” that I have never understood on the basis of logic or reason - the need for each “act” to have the appropriate “internal” conclusion - even when the wife is already pregnant. However, one can’t be more “open to life” than being already pregnant. I suspect the response from some of the forum members to be something along the lines of any other “conslusion” would be disordered. However, that is a begging-the-question, circular type of argument. If there is a better explanation, I haven’t heard it.

 

[Nate13]

The above post is excellent, IMHO. To me it comes across very honestly and humbly, and likely reflects what many Catholics feel about this topic.

There is another aspect of the “unitive” versus “procreative” that I have never understood on the basis of logic or reason - the need for each “act” to have the appropriate “internal” conclusion - even when the wife is already pregnant. However, one can’t be more “open to life” than being already pregnant. I suspect the response from some of the forum members to be something along the lines of any other “conslusion” would be disordered. However, that is a begging-the-question, circular type of argument. If there is a better explanation, I haven’t heard it.

Its a fail argument. I will use the same argument on another topic:

“In a nutshell, TO ME - Euthanasia is NO different than natural death if the persons intent is the same - to allow someone to escape pointless suffering that is already going to die. 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 argument above forgets the fact that the means by which a good object is achieved are just as important as the object and intent of the person when determining whether an act is moral.

I’ll lay it out one more time for you. The undeniable difference between NFP and contraception is that you are never making any one sexual act less fertile than it naturally would be. When using contraception you are denying the nature of how men and women have been created.

However I’m sure you already understand this. What you are questioning is why does it matter if you deny this? However to answer that question I would simply ask, “why is it wrong to deny the fact that God is the only arbiter of life, and that euthanasia is wrong?” Are you a right to die advocate as well?

In response to this:

There is another aspect of the “unitive” versus “procreative” that I have never understood on the basis of logic or reason - the need for each “act” to have the appropriate “internal” conclusion - even when the wife is already pregnant. However, one can’t be more “open to life” than being already pregnant.

This has already been addressed multiple times. You are correct in that the “open to life” idea really only addresses the attitude or intent a person has which is separate from the means a person chooses to put that intent into action. However I argued that NFP lends itself much more so than contraceptives do to helping a person achieve an attitude/intent that is more open to life. I’d also add that a person who is “open to life” does not mean that someone is trying to have a child. It means that person is open to God’s will with respect to their fertility and the amount of children they will have. Have you ever taken the time to pray and ask for guidance in relation to whether you should have another child? There is just an overall lack of discernment and there seems to be the attitude of “its easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission”.

 

[Brywan]

Haven’t read through all the multiple posts–sorry—

it IS birth control

It ISN’T artificial contraception…

 

[mark_a]

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.

Of course it’s birth control. What it’s not is artificial birth control.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I regret having started this thread. I think we all learned nothing. This is a topic that generates something like akin to hysteria.

God willing, I have learned a lesson, which is to not bring up such topics in a group with all sorts of Catholics.

I had thought maybe there was some answer to this matter. I no longer think so. Each person/couple must just pick one of the two main paths.

 

[ahs]

I regret having started this thread. I think we all learned nothing. This is a topic that generates something like akin to hysteria.

God willing, I have learned a lesson, which is to not bring up such topics in a group with all sorts of Catholics.

I had thought maybe there was some answer to this matter. I no longer think so. Each person/couple must just pick one of the two main paths.

There is actually a **direct answer **to your question. It was addressed in Pope Pius XII’s Allocution to Midwives . It’s looks long at first glance, but it reads quickly.

I thought I had linked this earlier in the thread…I may have forgotten.

Part of the confusion I think is the wording of your question. “Birth Control” is not what is sinful, per se. Yet, being a moral theology forum, I, and perhaps others, assumed you were asking whether NBR is sinful and how it is different from the sinful act of contraception. It is “contracepting the marital act” that is sinful. That is what led to many of the lengthy explanations. If birth control = birth regulation…there is nothing sinful in that as long as that birth regulation is done in a natural way (continence). If birth control = contraception…that is a sin. Maybe you could have worded the question to ask what you had intended…or clarified that you indeed intended only to know if NBR is “birth control” and that you understand that not all “birth control” is sinful, per se.

 

[sw85]

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.

OK, well, let’s take a look at what those actions would be:

Is it sinful to monitor your own fertility cycles? No.

Is it sinful to wish to avoid conception if one has just cause (i.e., financial pressure or medical problems)? No.

Is it sinful to periodically abstain from sex? No.

How can three things, none of which are sinful on their own, add up to a sin?

 

[Nate13]

I regret having started this thread. I think we all learned nothing. This is a topic that generates something like akin to hysteria.

God willing, I have learned a lesson, which is to not bring up such topics in a group with all sorts of Catholics.

I had thought maybe there was some answer to this matter. I no longer think so. Each person/couple must just pick one of the two main paths.

The first two pages contain the answer to your question. The rest was hijacked by Luvtosew, Debora, and rotlex who all had other reasonable questions that pertained to the subject you posted about. Considering this is your first post since your original in the thread I don’t think you can complain too much about others using your thread as an opportunity to voice their own questions.

Your question was answered and the differences between contraception and NFP were outlined. What you really need to ask now is why those differences matter in terms of morality.

 

[THP]

OK, well, let’s take a look at what those actions would be:

Is it sinful to monitor your own fertility cycles? No.

Is it sinful to wish to avoid conception if one has just cause (i.e., financial pressure or medical problems)? No.

Is it sinful to periodically abstain from sex? No.

How can three things, none of which are sinful on their own, add up to a sin?

Because of what you do with that knowledge. When the couple chooses to have sex during the infertile period they are doing it because they know they won’t conceive. Otherwise, if they were unsure, they would continue to abstain. The only reason to use NFP is to ensure you can have sex without getting pregnant.

Of course, as I’ve learned reading these threads, the Church doesn’t have a problem with this line of reasoning or else it would prohibit sex with pregnant, post-menopausal or naturally or artificially infertile women. What the Church really cares about is that sperm be deposited into the vagina. I think that is a little odd but so be it.

 

[sw85]

Because of what you do with that knowledge. When the couple chooses to have sex during the infertile period they are doing it because they know they won’t conceive. Otherwise, if they were unsure, they would continue to abstain. The only reason to use NFP is to ensure you can have sex without getting pregnant.

Of course, as I’ve learned reading these threads, the Church doesn’t have a problem with this line of reasoning or else it would prohibit sex with pregnant, post-menopausal or naturally or artificially infertile women. What the Church really cares about is that sperm be deposited into the vagina. I think that is a little odd but so be it.

What is done, we just established, is not sinful. The three nonsinful acts committed together cannot add up to a sin. It is an ontological impossibility.

There is nothing wrong with acting in such a way as to reduce the possibility of conception provided you have a good reason for doing so, and provided you do so in a manner consistent with the natural end of the sexual faculty. Which is procreation. Which is achieved through intravaginal ejaculation. Which is exactly why, as you say, they don’t forbid sex during pregnancy or menopause in cases of sterility.

I don’t get what’s difficult about this to apprehend. Moral behavior is behavior consistent with the end of the various human faculties. The sexual faculty serves the end of procreation. Procreation is achieved through intravaginal ejaculation. Hence moral sexual behavior is that which concludes in intravaginal ejaculation (in the context of marriage, as procreation leads to the formation of families).

 

[Nate13]

Because of what you do with that knowledge. When the couple chooses to have sex during the infertile period they are doing it because they know they won’t conceive. Otherwise, if they were unsure, they would continue to abstain. The only reason to use NFP is to ensure you can have sex without getting pregnant.

Of course, as I’ve learned reading these threads, the Church doesn’t have a problem with this line of reasoning or else it would prohibit sex with pregnant, post-menopausal or naturally or artificially infertile women. What the Church really cares about is that sperm be deposited into the vagina. I think that is a little odd but so be it.

You know you right. If God wanted us to know what we were supposed to do with our sexual faculties he would have made it so obvious that no one would ever mistake what he wanted. I mean never mind the fact the sexual faculties of both sexes are located in the same place on the human body and they seem to oddly fit perfectly together like they were made to work like that. I’m sorry but not everyone is lucky enough to be like Paul and get a lightning strike when they are doing something God does not approve of.