How is NFP morally different to condoms?

[cynic]

//NFP involves sacrifice and abstinence from the marital act as a form of birth control.
It seeks to honor both the dignity of the woman as a person, not simply an object of her husband, and simultaneously remains open to the possibility of life during the marital act itself//

I can’t understand this, surely knowingly having sex during times when conception isn’t going to happen could result in ‘objectification’ aswell. Also ABC could be used to space out births, it is the method, not the intent that people use as example of immorality- but then say the intent is different too? It seems you selectivley use different motives when discussing NFP or contraception. People using NFP are making love but those using contraception are using each other as objects, apparently. If acceptable sex is never about ‘selfish desires’ then a noone should ever have sex unless they specifically intend to have a child. It’s a matter of DEGREE, those using NFP are partially selfish by giving in to non procreative sex sometimes, those using ABC are more selfish by giving in all the time. Where is this great moral difference?

I think the real reason the catholic church is opposed to contraception is because it has allowed promiscuity and the sexual revolution to happen. But in the process it makes married couples responsible for the actions of others. Then they invent reasons such as ‘giving completely to each other’, as if sperm meeting egg is neccessary for true intimacy. Whatever. The only solution for those married is either complete abstinence, having a sexual relationship only within 5 days a month, or having 11 children.

 

[Michels]

So many big, long, boring, confusing comments…

I am only going to try to make one simple point. I know there is much more “theology” behind it. If you want to know it, read Theology of the Body Good book!

NFP brings the couple closer. My wife and I practice it and anyone who does will agree if they are truely practicing it. Sex with a condom tends to be self serving, can’t really explain why, it just is.

And for those who think you can never have sex or hardly at all with NFP, you are either uninformed, or making mistakes. A woman is only really fertile for a few days out of a whole month.

 

[greenfrog]

Shiann:

Because God is out of the equation EVERY time a condom is used.

My problem is that I hear what you are saying, but I don’t understand **why ** you are saying what you are saying.

Why is God is out of the equation EVERY time a condom is used, but not out of the equation when NFP is used?..

I go back to my original question… **How ** is NFP morally different to condoms?

I’m not asking “is NFP morally different to condoms” - I know that some people will say yes, some people will say no, but I’m asking those who say yes to explain why.

 

[greenfrog]

mike182d:

First, I’ll appeal to your experience. Does sex with a condom emotionally feel the same as sex without? Why?

Yes, it feels the same emotionally. I don’t know why - I suppose because in both cases I’m making love to my wife.

mike182d:

Second, I’ve provided the analogy of Bob and Tom. Both had it in their hearts that they wanted to make money. Making money is not an inherent evil, therefore God, knowing both their hearts, will judge them the same, correct?

No because one stole to achieve his aims, the other didn’t. Of course, you are saying that condoms are a bad way to achieve the aim, NFP isn’t… but, again, I’m asking why is that the case?

mike182d:

Third, NFP is never to be used as contraception. There should never be a desire in a married person’s heart to *not *have a child.

My wife and I would welcome with joy any child we have, whether we were planning to conceive or not. We do not have the attitude of not wanting future children - we most certainly do want brothers and sisters for our son, but for my wife’s health (and her ability to care for a new child) we want to postpone that event.

mike182d:

Contraception concerns itself with what the parents want. NFP concerns itself with what is good our children.

How?!?!?!? Both methods would be used for the same reasons!

mike182d:

Fourthly, per my example above, contraception is far less effective than NFP in post-poning child birth. NFP is 99% effective.

How is this a moral difference?

mike182d:

Fithly, there is a huge difference between preventing and post-poning. Even as we follow my bride’s cycles, there is always a chance that she could become pregnant. Thus, even when we engage in the marital union, we do so with this knowledge and thus without fear of having a child. You can’t very well say you’re not afraid if you’ve got a gun in your hand.

We don’t have any fear of a child when we use condoms. We would welcome any child. Why does using a condom mean you’re afraid, but avoiding sex during fertile periods mean you’re not afraid?

mike182d:

Thus, with NFP, we’ve hired God as a “broker” to play the market. We suggest what we think is best to maximize our return, but ultimately it will be the broker’s decision because he knows the market better than we do.

As I’ve said… neither method is 100% effective. If you’re going to call failure of the NFP method “God being the broker” then why isn’t he the broker when condoms fail?

mike182d:

Sixthly, suppose I said: “Hey! I’ve got a great drug for you! Now, the side effects are that it might give you cancer, give you terrible mood swings, migraines, and so forth BUT, guess what it can do? It will stop your lungs from working! Isn’t that great?!”

Now, you would probably think I was out of my mind, but that’s exactly what we do with the Pill. We give women this drug to actually stop her body from working the way it is supposed to, and then pile on a ton of terrible side effects. Doesn’t sound too great, does it?

I’m not talking about the Pill, I understand why that’s wrong, there are logical explanations. I’m talking about condoms… I’ve read everything you’ve posted, and I thank you very much for your time but I haven’t read a single logical explanation of the moral difference… you just seem to be saying that the motives are different for each method, but I can assure you that my wife and I have the motives you say NFP users have, and the only difference as far as we can see is that we’d have fewer opportunities to express our love to each other physically using NFP.

 

[greenfrog]

masterjedi747:

Nope. That’s exactly what the difference is.
Contraceptive = Anti-conceptive
NFP = Abstinence = Non-conceptive
Two different ways of achieving the same goal, but one is immoral and the other is not. Abstinence is a moral (and natural) means of avoiding conception. Condoms are an unnatural means of avoiding conception, plus they deliberately seek to remove the potential for the creation of a new life from the act itself. It’s a delicate yet necessary distinction. One is anti-conceptive and one is non-conceptive. Hope this helps!

Thanks, but I don’t understand the difference.

Condoms: let you have sex without a sperm meeting an egg.
NFP: let you have sex without a sperm meeting an egg.

If by “natural” you mean there’s no foreign object involved… how does that make any difference to the morality? Would you say it’s immoral to use lubricant? What about medicines?

And is NFP really that natural? It involves measuring temperatures using precise thermometers, recording temperature data regularly, and analysing the data. It is only very recently in history that we’ve had the technology to do all this, and it seems **less ** natural to me.

The differences are physical and still can’t understand why it’s so much more virtuous to study a graph of your wife’s temperature and deliberately avoid sex when she’s likely to have an egg there, versus using a condom.

 

[Arlene]

There was a discussion a week or so ago similiar to this, I wish I could find it.

I think it has to do with spilling the seed which is forbidden in the Bible. A condom causes the man to spill his seed.

Abstaining from sex for a few days does not cause the man to spill his seed, he saves it for another day.

My understanding is that that for the marital act to be totally complete, the sperm must enter the woman’s body. Now, if that happens during a nonfertile time, so be it.

Now, I’m sure there are verses and references to all this, I wouldn’t know where to begin to find them, but this is what I have gathered by reading these discussions.

 

[greenfrog]

But Jesus taught that sin comes from the heart. The sin of Onan was to trick and manipulate his brother’s widow, that sin came from his heart. The desire on the heart of a condom or NFP user seems to me to be the same.

 

[cheddarsox]

I agree with Greenfrog, I think that very often they are used with the same intent and do not differ morally. This is not to say they are always used with the same intent.

Here is a scripture that also adresses the motive for intercourse…Tobias 6:17, it was brought up on another thread concerning NFP.

cheddar

 

[mike182d]

greenfrog:

But Jesus taught that sin comes from the heart. The sin of Onan was to trick and manipulate his brother’s widow, that sin came from his heart. The desire on the heart of a condom or NFP user seems to me to be the same.

Catholics are not utilitarians - the end does not justify the means. Just because the end is the same in two situations, it does not necessarily follow that the means of attaining those ends are morally equivelant.

You seem hung up on this idea that what makes the use of a condom wrong is the desire to not conceive in a moment of marital union. This is not what makes the use of a condom wrong and so by constantly comparing the two on this basis alone only further confuses you.

As I said earlier, if I were to wrap the Eucharist in a plastic wrap, so that when I received it, it could not be digested and would just pass right through me, would there be any *real *physical union with Christ in the Eucharist in that moment? Sex with a condom is no different, and its a false sense of union.

Sex has two primary functions within a marriage: unity and procreation. With a condom, you remove procreation *and *real unity from the marital act; it becomes solely about pleasure.

With NFP, procreation is not removed. In comparison to other animals, women are relatively infertile - there’s about a 10 day window every month in which its even possible to get pregnant. God designed the woman’s body this way because human beings aren’t just baby making machines. There is a reason why God made a woman’s cycle as it is and NFP works with God in this way. Therefore, the practice of NFP doesn’t “reject” fertility any more than God “rejects” female fertility by making her cycle so long. We are respecting what God gave us and working within His rules. Furthermore, there is always true union in the sexual act with NFP. Nothing is ever held back.

With a condom, we are saying we don’t respect God’s plan for fertility in a woman and impose our will on His creation. Thus, this is a complete rejection of procreation. True union is not attained in this act either as I’ve demonstrated above.

Thus, as the practices may share the same end - postponing childbirth - the means of attaining this end are virtually polar opposites and one is *much *more unhealthy for the marriage than the other.

 

[MaryB23]

I think that NFP CAN be used in an immoral way if the intent to child space goes against the teachings of the Church. So spiritually, there MAY be no difference between the two methods. I think your question is this: if the reason you want to wait to conceive is valid and just (good intent) what’s the difference between waiting to conceive by using condoms or waiting to conceive by only having sex during non-fertile times of your wife’s cycle, right?

If that is in fact your question, I’m not sure what to say that will make it clearer than what other people have already said. Yes, NFP CAN use unnatural stuff to implement (such as a thermometer) but the act itself is still completely natural - the man finishes by spilling his seed into his wife’s body. With using condoms, the act itself is not completely natural - the man finishes by spilling his seed into a condom and not into his wife’s body. With condoms, there is no sacrifice on the part of either partner. They can have sex anytime they want to. With NFP, if you do choose not to try to conceive in any particular given cycle, there needs to be some sacrifice from both partners by abstaining from sex during your wife’s fertile time. If you want to make the two methods equal, I guess you could put on a condom and then NOT have sex with your wife during her fertile time.

Like I stated earlier, what I said isn’t any different from what was already said, but I gave it a shot.

 

[MaryB23]

mike182d:

Catholics are not utilitarians - the end does not justify the means. Just because the end is the same in two situations, it does not necessarily entail that the means of attaining those ends are morally equivelant.

You seem hung up on this idea that what makes the use of a condom wrong is the desire to not conceive in a moment of marital union. This is not what makes the use of a condom wrong and so by constantly comparing the two on this basis alone only further confuses you.

As I said earlier, if I were to wrap the Eucharist in a plastic wrap, so that when I received it, it could not be digested and would just pass right through me, would there be any *real *physical union with Christ in the Eucharist in that moment? Sex with a condom is no different, and its a false sense of union.

Sex has two primary functions within a marriage: unity and procreation. With a condom, you remove procreation *and *real unity from the marital act; it becomes solely about pleasure.

With NFP, procreation is not removed. In comparison to other animals, women are relatively infertile - there’s about a 10 day window every month in which its even possible to get pregnant. God designed the woman’s body this way because human beings aren’t just baby making machines. There is a reason why God made a woman’s cycle as it is and NFP works with God in this way. Therefore, the practice of NFP doesn’t “reject” fertility any more than God “rejects” female fertility by making her cycle so long. We are respecting what God gave us and working within His rules. Furthermore, there is always true union in the sexual act with NFP. Nothing is ever held back.

With a condom, we are saying we don’t respect God’s plan for fertility in a woman and impose our will on His creation. Thus, this is a complete rejection of procreation. True union is not attained in this act either as I’ve demonstrated above.

Thus, as the practices may share the same end - postponing childbirth - the means of attaining this end are virtually polar opposites and one is *much *more unhealthy for the marriage than the other.

I was posting my reply at the same time as yours or else I wouldn’t have said all I did because you just said it - and much more eloquently than I could have.

 

[OhioBob]

cynic:

…The only solution for those married is either complete abstinence, having a sexual relationship only within 5 days a month, or having 11 children.

Apparently you don’t understand NFP very well. You pretty much have things backwards.

 

[felra]

//NFP involves sacrifice and abstinence from the marital act as a form of birth control.
It seeks to honor both the dignity of the woman as a person, not simply an object of her husband, and simultaneously remains open to the possibility of life during the marital act itself//

I can’t understand this, surely knowingly having sex during times when conception isn’t going to happen could result in ‘objectification’ aswell. Also ABC could be used to space out births, it is the method, not the intent that people use as example of immorality- but then say the intent is different too? It seems you selectivley use different motives when discussing NFP or contraception. People using NFP are making love but those using contraception are using each other as objects, apparently. If acceptable sex is never about ‘selfish desires’ then a noone should ever have sex unless they specifically intend to have a child. It’s a matter of DEGREE, those using NFP are partially selfish by giving in to non procreative sex sometimes, those using ABC are more selfish by giving in all the time. Where is this great moral difference?

The method and the intent are both taken into consideration when considering the morality of an act, in this case family planning.

There exists between ABC and NFP an infinite difference in method and intent. Only NFP (properly understood and lived out) can practically and intentionally offer the total gift of one to the other (in imitation of Christ total self giving to His Bride the Church). Only NFP offers the capability of no object use of the other. The total giving of self is not a function of/determined by the woman’s fertility, but by the unobstructed, mutual total self giving in the spousal union.

The reasoning that you present to draw your erroneous conclusions attempts to circumvent the reality fact that unless the husband deposits his seed in his wife, you have no total self giving.

 

[mike182d]

MaryB23:

I was posting my reply at the same time as yours or else I wouldn’t have said all I did because you just said it - and much more eloquently than I could have.

Thank you for your compliment, but don’t think so little of yourself

If I appear eloquent, its not because of anything I’ve done; It’s because I’m paraphrasing some of the greatest theologians of our time: Pope John Paul II, Christopher West, Dr. Janet Smith, et cetera.

You can thank them

 

[gardenswithkids]

greenfrog:

The desire on the heart of a condom or NFP user seems to me to be the same.

You may be right there. I think much of the confusion about the Church teachings on birth control comes because NFP is often used by couples who really don’t have a serious reason not to have more children. The Church has not given us clear guidelines on what constitutes a “grave” reason.

Let’s face it. We live in a society that obsesses about sex and that separates idea of making babies from making love. The thought of having a large family never enters most peoples’ minds. Some Catholics try to follow the “rules” of our society and limit their family size, while trying to follow the “rules” of the Church and so use NFP. For some NFP users, there really isn’t much moral difference between how they use NFP versus other forms of birth control, (except the Church allows use of NFP–there is a big moral difference just on that point alone.)

If you can’t still can’t see any moral difference between NFP and condom use, maybe you should re-examine your reasons for wanting to avoid a pregnancy. Children are blessings. Sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, blessed is the man who’s quiver is full. Psalm 127:3-5

 

[greenfrog]

Thanks for the response Mike.

mike182d:

Catholics are not utilitarians - the end does not justify the means. Just because the end is the same in two situations, it does not necessarily follow that the means of attaining those ends are morally equivelant.

I entirely agree.

mike182d:

You seem hung up on this idea that what makes the use of a condom wrong is the desire to not conceive in a moment of marital union. This is not what makes the use of a condom wrong and so by constantly comparing the two on this basis alone only further confuses you.

OK, we’re in agreement that the desires of an NFP and condom user are the same - I will stop harping on about it. Let’s stick to the moral difference between the physical means of enacting that desire.

mike182d:

As I said earlier, if I were to wrap the Eucharist in a plastic wrap, so that when I received it, it could not be digested and would just pass right through me, would there be any *real *physical union with Christ in the Eucharist in that moment? Sex with a condom is no different, and its a false sense of union.

I honestly don’t know. The meaning and presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a mystery to me. It is interesting that you should mention the link though - because the obsession some people have with the physical destination of the Eucharist seems petty and legalistic to me, for similar reasons. Churches used to wash dropped crumbs with special water, and put it down a special drain, but this is no longer done. I’m all for respect of the host, but I think obsessing about the physical details is not what God wants - it is the spirit and the heart that is truly important surely. At least that’s the impression that I get from everything that Jesus says in the gospels. I feel that some Catholics are re-enacting the Pharisees’ obsession with the physical, and “uncleanliness”.

mike182d:

Sex has two primary functions within a marriage: unity and procreation.

Yes, I agree

mike182d:

With a condom, you remove procreation *and *real unity from the marital act; it becomes solely about pleasure.

With NFP, procreation is not removed. In comparison to other animals, women are relatively infertile - there’s about a 10 day window every month in which its even possible to get pregnant. God designed the woman’s body this way because human beings aren’t just baby making machines. There is a reason why God made a woman’s cycle as it is and NFP works with God in this way. Therefore, the practice of NFP doesn’t “reject” fertility any more than God “rejects” female fertility by making her cycle so long. We are respecting what God gave us and working within His rules. Furthermore, there is always true union in the sexual act with NFP. Nothing is ever held back.

With a condom, we are saying we don’t respect God’s plan for fertility in a woman and impose our will on His creation. Thus, this is a complete rejection of procreation. True union is not attained in this act either as I’ve demonstrated above.

Thus, as the practices may share the same end - postponing childbirth - the means of attaining this end are virtually polar opposites and one is *much *more unhealthy for the marriage than the other.

This is the point at which I cannot understand what you are saying. You’re obviously intelligent which makes me even more confused.

From experience, I *know * that sex with condoms is fully capable of uniting myself and my wife. It is not solely about pleasure. Masturbation would be solely about pleasure but sex (with or without condoms) unites us on all levels, except the physical exchange of fluids.

So the only conclusion which I can draw from what you are saying is that the exchange of fluids (regardless of whether they will be fruitful) is essential, and that is what makes no sense to me.

Why does one method show respect for God and the other not? This is the sort of unqualified comment that I find so frustrating in all of this.

When you say that using condoms “imposes our will on God”, are you saying that cleverly avoiding fertile periods does not impose our will on God?

Is using drugs to cure TB an immoral imposition of our will on God’s? If doctors did not intervene in nature by artificial means, thousands would die every day… but if what you’re saying is true, then surely we should stop interfering?

I would suggest that God has given us brains, ingenuity, and conscience, and that we are called to be good, moral, loving stewards and masters of our nature, not slaves to it.

 

[greenfrog]

MaryB23:

With condoms, there is no sacrifice on the part of either partner. They can have sex anytime they want to. With NFP, if you do choose not to try to conceive in any particular given cycle, there needs to be some sacrifice from both partners by abstaining from sex during your wife’s fertile time. If you want to make the two methods equal, I guess you could put on a condom and then NOT have sex with your wife during her fertile time.

Why does the fact that sacrifice is involved make it morally superior? Some sacrifice is commendable (such as laying one’s life down for one’s friend), but surely unnecessary sacrifice is merely self-flagellation [although I know Opus-Dei members will tell me that’s good too].

 

[Shiann]

greenfrog:

My problem is that I hear what you are saying, but I don’t understand **why **you are saying what you are saying.

At some point in my life, I decided that God does have a plan for my life, and a plan for all the lives that I will give birth to. God has designed my body to accept conception at certain times of the month. If I engage in the marital embrace during those times, I may or may not get pregnant. I can choose IF I will engage or not.

Beyond that choice, I guess I feel it is up to GOD whether or not conception will occur. Statistically speaking, there are so many variables in the mix during this time that it TRUELY is miraculous that pregnancy occurs.

When I make both choices, that is, when I decide the “if I will engage” AND the “if I will allow myself to be pregnant”; I am removing God from the whole scenerio.

God wants us to invite him to all parts of our lives. Because conception is such a direct parallel to God’s Creation, I feel it is so very important to invite Him into this aspect of my life ALWAYS.

He decided that I have control over initiating the pro-creation process. He gave me times where I can freely enjoy the experience with my husband with little possibility of children.
(You are completely right that when we use this step to avoid children- without good cause- this IS as damaging to our relationship with God as if we were using a condom).

But ultimately in all proper, NFP guided, marital sexual experiences He STILL decides if the procreation process will occur. ALWAYS. When we introduce a condom to this step we remove God from the process ALWAYS.

It is NEVER ok to use a condom. It NEVER invites God to the marriage.

NFP when used inappropriately ALSO NEVER invites God into the marriage. And it is just as bad. But even with improper NFP, there is still no barrier between you and your wife, and the spiritual giving that occurs between two married people still exists.

Proper use of NFP ALWAYS invites God into the marriage.

Truly, I understand your question, and don’t mean to beat you over the head with similar sounding posts. I don’t know how else to say it.

Why is God is out of the equation EVERY time a condom is used, but not out of the equation when NFP is used?..

God is not out of the equation when PROPER NFP is used because when proper NFP is used, the couple is cognisant of the procreative aspects of the marital embrace, and put aside their will to allow God to work in their marriage as He wishes. The recognize their duties to God and eachother and their children- (all of their children).

When a condom is introduced, or when IMPROPER NFP is used, the couple has decided that they know better than God. THEY know (better than God) how many children they can handle, or how many children they can afford. The remove their trust in God- and place their trust in a sperm catcher or even back in their ability to read NFP charts. God is gone from these situations, and THAT is what makes both these situations wrong.

I go back to my original question… **How **is NFP morally different to condoms?

Improper use of NFP is no different from using condoms because in those situations, trust in God is removed from the situation and our own wishes and desires are placed in the forefront. God calls us to trust in Him. He tells us again and again that He knows each of us and what we need- and He promises to provide for us if we just Trust in Him. That is gone when we ambush his plans for new life by introducing condoms or refrain from the marital embrace for non-grave reasons.

I’m not asking “is NFP morally different to condoms” - I know that some people will say yes, some people will say no, but I’m asking those who say yes to explain why.

I’m not sure what you mean here. The reason why proper use of NFP is different than condoms IS MORALITY. One is moral while the other is not.

There have been a number of posters here who have shown why one is moral and the other is not.

But inherent in morality is the decision to follow the moral or not. And inherent in that decision is a good dose of Faith in God; the willingness to give your fertility to eachother and to God for His purposes. I can tell you are a loving husband and father and that you want to do the best for your family. I commend you on your exploration of this matter, and I pray that you find clarity in this…

 

[Jesus4Me]

I have always struggled with understanding this. My logical mind can’t comprehend the difference since both methods are preventing pregnancy. I’ve read all the responses but still am no closer to understanding. :nope:

I’m right there with you greenfrog.

 

[HpyCatholic]

Greenfrog,

I think your missing a big point. Your comparing condom use to the whole of NFP, you should be comparing condom use to abstinence. Abstinence is the key to birth spacing in NFP. I hope you agree there is a big moral difference between condom use and abstinence to postpone children?

Obviously the biggest difference is that abstienence is prescribed in the bible as a form of birthing control, while condom use is not. Also, as others have said you are not truly united with your spouse when using condoms during the sex act. How can you be wholley united when you have a piece of latex coming between your skin and your wife’s skin.

Another major difference I see is as NFP users my wife an I make a sacrifice every month we choose to postpone having children. This sacrifice is abstinence. We lovingly and openly choose to take on this sacrifice as part of Gods plan for us. As a condom user you make no sacrifice.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.