How is NFP morally different to condoms?

[greenfrog]

Hi, I would love to hear an explanation of why NFP is morally better than condoms.

I completely understand the moral difference between NFP and abortifacient contraception (where a human embryo is created by the joining of a sperm and an egg, and that embryo - which I believe to be a human being - is ejected from the mother to die).

However… looking at the issue from a practical, common-sense angle, how are NFP and condoms different from each other?

The idea of NFP is to have sex, but try to make sure that the sperm never get the chance to meet an egg (by time of the month).

The idea of condoms is to have sex, but try to make sure that the sperm never get the chance to meet an egg (by putting a physical barrier between them).

Neither method is 100% effective, so users of either method are open to the possiblilty of procreation.

Users of either method are trying to avoid conception.

If, as Jesus said, sins come from within us - our hearts, our motives, then how can the 2 different external ways of preventing a sperm meeting an egg (with the same motive) be so morally different?

Look forward to any responses, thanks in advance,

greenfrog.

 

[Karen_Anne]

Great question! Either you are open to conception or not. It seems to me that poor condom use (including faulty condoms) would leave you MORE open to conception than proper, well-managed NFP…

Karen Anne

 

[felra]

greenfrog:

Hi, I would love to hear an explanation of why NFP is morally better than condoms.

However… looking at the issue from a practical, common-sense angle, how are NFP and condoms different from each other?

greenfrog.

In practical terms, one (condom) is an intrusion, introducing a foreign barrier; the other (NFP) is not. In common sense terms, God already has made provision for a couple to regulate childbirth by working within the natural cycles of fertility for the woman (NFP); the other combats and seeks to circumvent/blockade what is God’s design for sexuality.

Also, one posses more risk of making the other into an object of pleasure (condom) by seeking to remove/eliminate the procreative aspect of marital union; the other implicitly keeps lust in check (NFP) by retaining an open embrace of the full dual aspects of marital union. I could go on and on, but I will present this for starters.

Bottom line, you have to try it (NFP) to experientially know the difference.

 

[gardenswithkids]

greenfrog:

… looking at the issue from a practical, common-sense angle, how are NFP and condoms different from each other?

The idea of NFP is to have sex, but try to make sure that the sperm never get the chance to meet an egg (by time of the month).

The idea of condoms is to have sex, but try to make sure that the sperm never get the chance to meet an egg (by putting a physical barrier between them).

…how can the 2 different external ways of preventing a sperm meeting an egg (with the same motive) be so morally different?.

The biggest difference I see is what is done with the husband’s sperm. With NFP, the husband doesn’t give away his sperm during the woman’s fertile time because they are abstaining from marital relations. With condoms, he gives his sperm away to a piece of latex that is later thrown in the trash. There is a huge difference between abstinence versus treating men’s sperm like garbage.

For those using condoms that still just can’t see a difference, then if you *really *think their no difference, why not use something that the Church says is acceptable? And incidentally, the Church doesn’t teach that you must use NFP-- it’s perfectly acceptable if the husband’s sperm finds the wife’s egg.

 

[mike182d]

The difference in quite simple:

With contraception you are controlling a part of your spouse to get what you want.

With NFP you are giving everything to your spouse and wanting whatever comes of it.

Which attitude is more true to the marital vows and healthier for your life together as a couple?

 

[greenfrog]

to felra:

But how do the differing **physical ** attributes of each method (i.e. condoms = a foreign barrier, nfp = fertility cycle, as you say) affect the **morality ** of each method?

Why does using condoms run more risk of making the other into an object of pleasure than NFP? Both methods are seeking to prevent conception - the use of condoms just means that a man an wife can have sex during the fertile period also.

I have experienced both methods, and the only difference I have found between them is that condoms allow us to make love more often.

to gardenswithkids:

I don’t understand the **moral ** difference between sperm ending up in a garbage can (eventual outcome of effective condom use) or down the drain (eventual outcome of effective NFP use)… surely these are physical matters, not matters of the heart, motive, and morality?

 

[mike182d]

to felra:

But how do the differing **physical **attributes of each method (i.e. condoms = a foreign barrier, nfp = fertility cycle, as you say) affect the **morality **of each method?

Why does using condoms run more risk of making the other into an object of pleasure than NFP? Both methods are seeking to prevent conception - the use of condoms just means that a man an wife can have sex during the fertile period also.

I have experienced both methods, and the only difference I have found between them is that condoms allow us to make love more often.

to gardenswithkids:

I don’t understand the **moral **difference between sperm ending up in a garbage can (eventual outcome of effective condom use) or down the drain (eventual outcome of effective NFP use)… surely these are physical matters, not matters of the heart, motive, and morality?

The sperm is not sacred, that’s a form of idolatry, and thus discussion over the proper care and placement of sperm really is irrelevant to the moral discussion. Morality is never concerned with the material, but the immaterial state of the soul, and subsequently how the material leads a soul to that state of being.

Thus, the debate should not be about only the physical and material result of the act, but rather the state of one’s heart in the act and how the physical and material lead one to this end.

After all, NFP can still be used as contraception and this is just as wrong.

Please see my earlier post.

 

[greenfrog]

mike182d:

The difference in quite simple:

With contraception you are controlling a part of your spouse to get what you want.

Where is the difference?

With NFP you are controlling the time of the month you have sex, to get what you want (sex without conception).

mike182d:

With NFP you are giving everything to your spouse and wanting whatever comes of it.

But exactly the same is true of sex with condoms. Where is the **moral ** difference?

 

[Shiann]

Donald DeMarco, Ph.D., a professor of philosophy at the University of St. Jerome’s, Ontario, Canada, has taught the philosophy behind NFP for several years. In a recent article in International Review of Natural Family Planning, Dr. DeMarco says that he’s always being asked by students, “What is the moral difference between abstaining from sex and using contraception? The intention and the end are identical in both instances - the avoidance of pregnancy.”

When he responded by pointing out that “abstinence does not interfere with the reproductive system in any way, whereas contraception does”, students would yawn. When he tried “periodic abstinence respects bodily integrity of the married couple, whereas contraception does not”, students would accuse him of splitting hairs.

One day, a your woman with “dark and intent eyes” asked him, quite seriously, to explain once again the distinction. Inspired by a genuine question, and idea sprang into his mind.

He relates, “I started with an analogy. Let us say that you and your fiance are making up a wedding invitation list. There are certain acquaintances of yours that you are not going to invite (obviously you cannot invite everyone you know). There are two things you can do. The first is the traditional approach: simply do not send these people invitations. The second approach is not at all conventional but would nonetheless achieve the same effect: send out notices telling them not to come, that their presence at the wedding is undesired.”

"Now, put yourself in the shoes of an acquaintence who receives a note telling her not to come to the wedding:“Dear Jan Doe, Tom and I are getting married next month and we want you to know that you are not invited to the wedding. We don’t want you, so please don’t come.” Would you feel differently receiving such a note as opposed to simply not receiving an invitation?

“My student acknowledged that apart from its unusualness, she would indeed feel differently in getting a “disinvitation.” In fact, as she admitted, she would feel insulted, whereas not getting an invitation would leave her, at the most, only disappointed. She also agreed that one would have to be pretty dense not to see an important moral and psychological difference between these two techniques for achieving the same end…”

“To tie the analogy in with NFP and contraception, I suggested the NFP couple that does not want a child just then, simply does not send out an invitation for a child; that is, they refrain from sexual intercourse, which is an act whose very nature is ordinated to the invitation or invocation of new life. The contracepting couple, on the other hand, by using a contraceptive is sending the message that a new life is undesired.”

“My student paused for a moment, looked up at me and said with a straightforward, emotionless countenance: “You’re right.” I was stunned, but recovered soon enough to be pleased by her response. Yet, I had not completed the analogy.”

“Now, enlisting the power of your imagination, put yourself in the position of the Creator. The abstaining couple who is practicing NFP is acting in such a way that they are not calling upon God’s creative act at that time. We cannot imagine God being insulted or dishonored here. The couple is simply not performing an action whose nature is ordained to elicit God’s creative act. God is still present, still respected, but no invitation is sent to Him that would invoke His presence in the specific form of His being a Creator of new life. Contrariwise, the contracepting couple, by using contraception, is sending an explicit message to God that His creative presence is not desired. Because He receives a “disinvitation” in the form of a contraceptive signal, we might easily imagine that He would be insulted.”

 

[greenfrog]

mike182d:

After all, NFP can still be used as contraception and this is just as wrong.

Now I’m really confused… what is NFP if it isn’t a method of contraception? NFP = Natural Family Planning… i.e. a method of avoiding conception…

contraception = literally, “against conception”… trying to avoid conception?

Isn’t NFP by definition a method of contraception (using the fertility cycle instead of a physical barrier / drugs?

 

[mike182d]

greenfrog:

Where is the difference?

With NFP you are controlling the time of the month you have sex, to get what you want (sex without conception).

I think you misunderstand the statement. What’s the difference between starving a person and fasting? Both are instances of control, right?

But exactly the same is true of sex with condoms. Where is the **moral **difference?

Are you married? If so, you cannot tell me that there is no difference between selfish sex, in which parts of the body are being manipulated and controled just so a desired feeling can be obtained, and unselfish sex in which neither of the people hold anything back in the sexual act.

NFP couples have better, and more constitent, sex lives than those that contracept and have a divorce rate of only 2% Why do you think that is if there is no difference?

 

[mike182d]

greenfrog:

Now I’m really confused… what is NFP if it isn’t a method of contraception? NFP = Natural Family Planning… i.e. a method of avoiding conception…

contraception = literally, “against conception”… trying to avoid conception?

Isn’t NFP by definition a method of contraception (using the fertility cycle instead of a physical barrier / drugs?

Are children a disease we need protection from?

 

[mike182d]

greenfrog:

Now I’m really confused… what is NFP if it isn’t a method of contraception? NFP = Natural Family Planning… i.e. a method of avoiding conception…

contraception = literally, “against conception”… trying to avoid conception?

Isn’t NFP by definition a method of contraception (using the fertility cycle instead of a physical barrier / drugs?

Here’s a better example:

Let us suppose that there are two men, Bob and Tom. They both want to make money.

Bob goes out and gets a job at a local grocer, works his way up through management and becomes quite successful.

Tom robs a series of banks and becomes wealthy beyond his wildest dreams.

Bob and Tom both wanted to make money and they both attained the same end. There’s no difference, right?

 

[Racer_X]

**Here is some discussion that I had at the blog http://liberalcatholicnews.blogspot.com/ this very morning. One of the key points is that the teaching that NFP is not sinful has itself not been infallibly discerned. I for one suspect that NFP is indeed contrary to the divine order like other contraception. **

The first section is by me.

*Post-menopausal heterosexual couples are in valid and licit marriages, and as far as I know, may marry even if entering the marriage past menopause. Younger infertile couples may also marry validly and licitly. *

*Fertile heterosexual couples may engage deliberately, freely, knowingly and willfully in conjugal acts that are closed to procreation during the infertile period of a women’s menstral cycle. *

I’m with you on this point. Except that I am more and more leaning towards the view that any sexual activity that is closed to procreation is sinful, even in the married state.

Has the Church infallibly taught that it is NOT a sin for the infertile to have sex? This issue really has only become clear in recent times with the modern understanding of reproductive biology. In earlier times it was mysterious and there was no way to know if a person was truly infertile, so in those cases sex could not have been a sin since the couple had no way of knowing that their conjugal act was closed to procreation.

As for the infertile period of the menstrual cycle, is there really such a thing? I happen to know a little boy who was a NFP surprise. But then again, condoms are not foolproof either. The subjective aspect of both seems to be equally trying to get around the reproductive function.

Has NFP been infallibly sanctioned?
Todd | Email | Homepage | 06.08.05 - 8:52 am | #

Todd,

It may surprise you that I accept your view. We are effectively on the same page.

The practice of NFP is not consistent with the Church’s 2,000 year teaching, and Humanae Vitae, which said NFP is permitted, is not an infallible definition. The Encyclical, itself, is not only inconsistent with the Church’s 2,000 year teaching on sexuality, but is internally inconsistent.

To make matters more confusing, in his description of “responsible parenthood”, Paul VI seems to imply that some couples will feel a legitimate dictate of conscience to avoid conception while expressing unitive love. He seems to be saying that NFP is not only permissible, but morally obligatory for some couples.

If NFP is a morally licit practice for the reasons stated in the letter, then non-abortificient and temporary means of artificial contraception should be morally licit for the very same reasons.

This said, the Church’s 2,000 year teaching that procreation is the primary end of every conjugal act has also never really been solemnly defined either. I don’t deny that this has been the constant teaching. I merely deny that the teaching was solemnly defined - similar to the fact that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was taught for centuries, but not solemnly defined until the nineteenth century.

We are at a cross-roads, and the Church’s leadership must decide which way the doctrine will ultimately develop. It cannot simply cling to Humanae Vitae as the final answer, since HV is inconsistent and serves as the catalyst for the experience of cognitive dissonance that I have written about recently.

There are two directions this development of doctrine could legitimately take.

1. Admit that HV was mistaken in affirming the moral legitimacy of NFP, and define more clearly that any sexual activity that is deliberately chosen in a context where procreation is known in advance to be impossible or any attempt to to deliberately avoid conception by making it highly unlikely is immoral.

Or,

1. Admit that HV was a legitimate development of the latent tradition contained in the Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage that sexuality expresses unitive love as its primary end, and procreation is really secondary. If the tradition is to develop in this direction, we must honestly and openly ask the question whether certain sexual acts that were formerly deemed immoral might be truly morally licit when engaged within the context of a permanent monogamous bond of consensual love. This might include a re-evaluation of not only contraception within marriage, but gay sex within the specific context of a permanent union**.**

 

[greenfrog]

Shiann’s analogy would make sense for me if it were advocating complete abstinence when not wishing to conceive, but NFP is a method of having sex and still not conceiving (by avoiding the fertile times of the month).

Therefore the analogy makes no sense to me… God sees the desires of our hearts, and surely the desires on the hearts of NFP and condom users are the same… to avoid conception but still have sex. Surely God would either be offended by both or neither?

 

[mike182d]

NFP as contraception *is *sinful.

 

[greenfrog]

mike182d:

Are children a disease we need protection from?

Of course not. We have a baby son whom we love dearly, he is a blessing from God. My wife is still recovering from his birth and is not yet fit enough for another pregnancy.

I’d appreciate it if people would keep posts on the issue… How is NFP morally different to condoms?, thanks.

 

[Shiann]

greenfrog:

Shiann’s analogy would make sense for me if it were advocating complete abstinence when not wishing to conceive, but NFP is a method of having sex and still not conceiving (by avoiding the fertile times of the month).

Therefore the analogy makes no sense to me… God sees the desires of our hearts, and surely the desires on the hearts of NFP and condom users are the same… to avoid conception but still have sex. Surely God would either be offended by both or neither?

Well, OK we’re getting somewhere…

Let’s take this one step at a time.

If we can agree that the above analogy makes sense, (if the couple were to engage in full abstinence vs. just a few days) can you see why condoms are MORALLY wrong?

That is, they take God out of the equation of their love making.

Do you agree with this?

 

[greenfrog]

mike182d:

NFP as contraception *is *sinful.

That’s not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Please check the Magesterium at www.vatican.va. It says that NFP is an acceptable method of spacing child births.

 

[greenfrog]

Shiann:

Let’s take this one step at a time.

If we can agree that the above analogy makes sense, (if the couple were to engage in full abstinence vs. just a few days) can you see why condoms are MORALLY wrong?

That is, they take God out of the equation of their love making.

Do you agree with this?

I don’t personally understand why it would be morally wrong (because I believe that sex is good, and that it’s not always a good time to get pregnant)…

BUT… it *would * at least be logical and consistent

what I do not understand is the inconsistency of saying that NFP is ok and condoms are not - the intention in both cases is the same.