S
Shiann
Guest
The understanding comes when you use the scripture in your signature and apply it to your fertility.
- Status
M
mike182d
Guest
Not to further complicate matters, but I shoud make one minor addition: If a couple has no legitimate reason not to have children, and they use NFP as a means of not having children, then this would be immoral. Refusing to have children for the sake of not having children is wrong *irrespective *of the method practiced.
Apply this to pregnancy: A woman’s fertility is a *good *thing - and this includes her period of infertility. There is nothing *bad *about a woman’s fertility cycles. As there is nothing wrong with fertility and woman’s fertility cycles, what legitimately warrants the use of science and technology to prevent or “cure” this condition as if it were a disease?
Furthermore, let’s suppose I have the flu and I have two choices for curing it: 1) take a medication that will kill the flu virus, but produce unwanted side-effects and possibly even death or 2) discipline myself by eating healthy, getting plenty of rest, and drinking a lot of water.
Which choice is the better option?
I know you’ve probably heard this before, but why is the divorce rate among Catholic couples who use contraception over 50% and the divorce rate for those who use NFP less than 2%? I’m doing my best to explain the reason why, but if you still have trouble, pray and meditate on that statistic: what is it about contraception that increases one’s odds of divorce?
Jesus said you shall know a tree by its fruit. NFP and contraception bear entirely different fruit. Why? Furthermore, would it not be in our best interests to try that which minimizes one’s chance of divorce, even if we had no idea why?
I think it would do well to study and meditate on the nature of the Eucharist to better understand the Church’s position on the marital union. The whole of salvation history is about a marriage, about Christ leaving his father to become one with His bride, the Church, and the Eucharist is that consummating act of union between God and man. The physical and the spiritual are not two seperate realms of being; my soul is not seperate from my body. So to it is with Christ in the Eucharist. If Christ is truly present it is not in an abstract “spiritual” sense but in a true physical, tangible sense. Believe it or not, the Church still does have those same rules in place concerning the protection and care of the Eucharist. Its just that in the post-Vatican II Church, it has almost become commonplace for priests to become lax in their observance of them. But I digress…
If I was a bubble-boy, like John Travolta in an after-school special, and I went to kiss my bride through the bubble, would the only real difference between this kiss, and one in which our lips actually touch, be an exchange of fluids? There is a greater level of intimacy involved in an “unprotected” embrace and I don’t think it does the beauty of the sexual act justice to minimize the difference to an exchange of fluids. I hardly question your love for your bride, as it is quite apparent that you have a great affection for her. But, I think you should ask your bride which is more intimate for her? Women generally tend to place greater emphasis on this sort of intimacy than men do. I am a bit of an exception, I guess, but that’s probably because I’m just a wierdo.
I’m actually glad you brought up advances in medical science. TB, the flu, or any disease for that matter, are contrary to the natural order of things. They cause death and take away life from us, to varying degrees. Because of the inherently “evil” nature of disease, it is thus appropriate to do what we can to fight them. Now, there can be certain ethical issue involved with this too, but that’s for another thread entirely. Bottom line, using medicine and technology to cure and prevent diseases is a *good *thing because diseases are *bad *things.
Apply this to pregnancy: A woman’s fertility is a *good *thing - and this includes her period of infertility. There is nothing *bad *about a woman’s fertility cycles. As there is nothing wrong with fertility and woman’s fertility cycles, what legitimately warrants the use of science and technology to prevent or “cure” this condition as if it were a disease?
Furthermore, let’s suppose I have the flu and I have two choices for curing it: 1) take a medication that will kill the flu virus, but produce unwanted side-effects and possibly even death or 2) discipline myself by eating healthy, getting plenty of rest, and drinking a lot of water.
Which choice is the better option?
I know you’ve probably heard this before, but why is the divorce rate among Catholic couples who use contraception over 50% and the divorce rate for those who use NFP less than 2%? I’m doing my best to explain the reason why, but if you still have trouble, pray and meditate on that statistic: what is it about contraception that increases one’s odds of divorce?
Jesus said you shall know a tree by its fruit. NFP and contraception bear entirely different fruit. Why? Furthermore, would it not be in our best interests to try that which minimizes one’s chance of divorce, even if we had no idea why?
H
HpyCatholic
Guest
It seems quite obvious to me even without bringing anything else into the discussion that NFP is a natural form of birth control while condoms are unnatural or artificial. This to me seems like a huge difference between the two right there.
Then you have the church specifically condemming condoms and accepting NFP with valid reasons and thats the kicker.
Transubstantiation is a great mystery that we don’t fully understand but its accepted by most Catholics. Is it really that much harder for people to accept that condom use is immoral even if you don’t fully understand why?
Then you have the church specifically condemming condoms and accepting NFP with valid reasons and thats the kicker.
Transubstantiation is a great mystery that we don’t fully understand but its accepted by most Catholics. Is it really that much harder for people to accept that condom use is immoral even if you don’t fully understand why?
R
Ray_Scheel
Guest
Never heard about “special water”, but churches do still have “special drains” and their use is still required when disposing of soild hosts/particles or spilled wine/blood, along with enough water to dilute those elements into obscurity.
I’m not really following your objection. It appears you understand that sex with condoms removes the procreative portion (the exchange of fluids) of the marital embrace, while NFP retains that portion of the embrace, and are instead quibbling on whether or not you have a right ot decide for yourself to separate the procreative and unitive aspect of the embrace.
Correct, because a couple using NFP has not done anything to deliberately interefere with a particular marital act so as to separate the God-joined unitive and procreative portions of the act. In the case of a couple using NFP, the woman’s symptoms of fertility could have been suppressed for some reason, yet they are still open to the life that would result even if they themselves thought they were not ready for another child. Couples using condoms take matters into thier own hands to sterilize the procreative aspect of the embrace.
The treatment of illness is to restore a person to health or normal function, while the purpose of a condom is to interefere with the normal pyhsical outcome (fluid exchange) of the completed marital act.
Additionally, there have been numerous studies indicating there is an actual health benefit to the woman from the fluid exchange, a benefit not realized when condoms are used. It does not all wind up “down the drain” as you suggested earlier as a parallel to condom use. But the presence of a health benefit being reduced by condom use further erodes the parallel you were attempting to draw here, as no one seeks a “treatment” to avoid a clear health benefit.
J
Jesus4Me
Guest
Is it God’s will to prevent preganancy - no matter how it is done?
M
masterjedi747
Guest
greenfrog, I think you’re getting hung up on the motives for using each:
When a couple uses condoms, they are saying “I want to have sex whenever I want to AND I don’t want to completely unite myself with my spouse in the sexual act of marriage AND I don’t want to have kids”…all selfish motives. Morally unacceptable.
When a couple uses NFP properly, they are saying “I want to abstain from sex with my spouse during the times when we are most likely to concieve AND I want to completely unite with my spouse in the sexual act of marriage whenever possible AND if, however unlikely, we do concieve a child during that time, we will lovingly accept it into our lives as a gift from God”…nothing selfish about the motives there. Morally acceptable.
And it should also be noted:
NFP used improperly can be selfish, and therefore may not morally acceptable. If the only reason the couple is seeking to avoid having more children is because “I don’t want to have any kids because then it would be too much work AND it would inconvenience me during my relaxation time during the day and/or my vacation time, which is unacceptable to me because I like having those things AND we never planned on having kids when we got married anyway…but we’re “good Catholics” (quotations added for emphasis) so we’re going to use NFP to determine when we can have sex together and when we should just consider doing other sexually related things together…God knows what we might have to consider if we ever do get pregnant”…I think you get the point. If NFP is going to be used for reasons like this, then it’s essentially serving no point at all, other than for just allowing the people to go through the physical steps without the correct intentions. Think Pharisees.
If these were the type of reasons that a couple was using NFP for, then I think you’d be absolutely right…it would essentially be no different than using condoms, because the intent is exactly same.
Is any of this making more sense, or did I miss your point of confusion completely?
When a couple uses condoms, they are saying “I want to have sex whenever I want to AND I don’t want to completely unite myself with my spouse in the sexual act of marriage AND I don’t want to have kids”…all selfish motives. Morally unacceptable.
When a couple uses NFP properly, they are saying “I want to abstain from sex with my spouse during the times when we are most likely to concieve AND I want to completely unite with my spouse in the sexual act of marriage whenever possible AND if, however unlikely, we do concieve a child during that time, we will lovingly accept it into our lives as a gift from God”…nothing selfish about the motives there. Morally acceptable.
And it should also be noted:
NFP used improperly can be selfish, and therefore may not morally acceptable. If the only reason the couple is seeking to avoid having more children is because “I don’t want to have any kids because then it would be too much work AND it would inconvenience me during my relaxation time during the day and/or my vacation time, which is unacceptable to me because I like having those things AND we never planned on having kids when we got married anyway…but we’re “good Catholics” (quotations added for emphasis) so we’re going to use NFP to determine when we can have sex together and when we should just consider doing other sexually related things together…God knows what we might have to consider if we ever do get pregnant”…I think you get the point. If NFP is going to be used for reasons like this, then it’s essentially serving no point at all, other than for just allowing the people to go through the physical steps without the correct intentions. Think Pharisees.
If these were the type of reasons that a couple was using NFP for, then I think you’d be absolutely right…it would essentially be no different than using condoms, because the intent is exactly same.Is any of this making more sense, or did I miss your point of confusion completely?
F
felra
Guest
For Catholics that is an okay place to be as long as they are giving obedience to Church teaching as your signature quote states – “Not my will but Your will be done.”, Luke 22:42 . When I have hit the wall of understanding faith matters in my finite mind, logical reasoning, that is the time to prayer for illumination of my understanding. It is amazing the grace that God is willing to afford me in coming to both know/understand and do His holy will as revealed through the authority of the Church.
S
Shiann
Guest
NO
God asks us to NOT INTERFERE with His will. By introducing a condom, you are interfering with His will. You are taking your Trust from God and in His creative process, and placing it on a condom or on other methods to prevent pregnancy. (Including NFP use for non-grave matters.)
F
felra
Guest
To add onto what Shiann has accurately stated, with NFP, the reality is to avoid pregnancy; with ABC, the reality is to prevent pregnancy.
G
greenfrog
Guest
OK, to stop the thread veering way off topic I’ll try to narrow it down a little.
mike182d:
mike182d:
What I’m saying is that, given we both accept that there are times when it is appropriate and not sinful to want to postpone the birth of a child, it seems to follow that if the **only ** reason that achieving our aims is wrong is that science and technology are interfering with nature, then all other interference with nature must be wrong too.
I could use the same argument to say that men who shave their faces daily are rejecting God’s design as inadequate, and interfering with it, after all there’s nothing wrong with facial hair.
That sounds silly, but it’s exactly how the current arguments sound to me.
There are huge numbers of nominal Catholics (certainly here in the UK, and I’m sure that same goes in the US), so it’s no surprise that NFP using Catholics have vastly lower divorce rates because if they accept the (what is perceived as very challenging) teaching on NFP they are almost certainly going to be practising Catholics, and are also very likely to accept the church’s condemnation of divorce. NFP users are likely to be Catholics who completely accept the authority of Rome and its teachings. I have great admiration for the faith and commitment of such Catholics, even though I don’t yet understand their logic
Yes, a woman’s fertility is a wonderful thing, and I’m not saying that it is a disease to be cured!
What I’m saying is that, given we both accept that there are times when it is appropriate and not sinful to want to postpone the birth of a child, it seems to follow that if the **only ** reason that achieving our aims is wrong is that science and technology are interfering with nature, then all other interference with nature must be wrong too.
I could use the same argument to say that men who shave their faces daily are rejecting God’s design as inadequate, and interfering with it, after all there’s nothing wrong with facial hair.
That sounds silly, but it’s exactly how the current arguments sound to me.
F
felra
Guest
I will interject my :twocents: --The only thing that I can see missing from your above argument/reasoning, is faith, which is a gift that only God can extend and give to each person. From my own personal experience, what did not make sense without faith, suddenly made perfect sense with faith (and the illumination of my understanding).NFP users are likely to be Catholics who completely accept the authority of Rome and its teachings. I have great admiration for the faith and commitment of such Catholics, even though I don’t yet understand their logic
What I’m saying is that, given we both accept that there are times when it is appropriate and not sinful to want to postpone the birth of a child, **it seems to follow that if the only reason that achieving our aims is wrong is that science and technology are interfering with nature, then all other interference with nature must be wrong too. **
That sounds silly, but it’s exactly how the current arguments sound to me.
M
MaryB23
Guest
I’ve bolded the part that I disagree with here. Abstinence from sex is not an unnecessary sacrifice if you don’t want to conceive a child right now. It’s a very necessary sacrifice. I know it doesn’t HAVE to be the ONLY way to avoid pregnancy since condoms do exist, but it’s the only way to avoid pregnancy within the natural law God gave to us. There are a lot of things we CAN do in today’s world, but it doesn’t mean we SHOULD do them.
I highly recommend Kimberly Hahn’s book Life Giving Love that deals with this. I haven’t read Christopher West’s book yet but it’s on my list next. I hear it’s pretty good, too.
S
Shiann
Guest
Science and technology has nothing to do with why it is wrong. NFP, which is NATURAL is wrong too when it is used to avoid pregnancy when non-grave matters exist.
The wrongness comes when you decided you are going to use the marital embrace in ways that it is not supposed to be used. By completely removing the creative aspect of the marital embrace by purposely introducing something that will in all likelyhood prevent conception (wether it is a condom or your intention to have sex ONLY during infertile times), you are making YOUR WILL more important than that of God.
Facial hair and children are different. I don’t know how else to respond to this point.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Science and technology are involved in identifying when a woman is fertile. That is appropriate use of science and technology, and it does nothing on it’s own to interfere with the marriage act. Any woman, married or not, can be taught to identify when she is fertile. NFP to postpone children interferes with the timing of the act, but it does not change the actual act when it is performed. A condom interferes with the very act itself.
M
marina
Guest
The wrongness comes when you decided you are going to use the marital embrace in ways that it is not supposed to be used
You are serious?
…marital embrace in ways that it is NOT SUPPOSED to be used.
You are serious?
…marital embrace in ways that it is NOT SUPPOSED to be used.
S
Shiann
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean…
But I’m serious. When the marital embrace is used strictly for pleasure- without including the procreative aspect of it- (regardless of the probability of conception) that is wrong.
R
Rascal
Guest
Greenfrog, please give an example of NFP preventing a sperm meeting an egg. It doesn’t. I think this is part of your confusion.
Condom is a physical barrier or wall the entire purpose of which is to be between the sperm and the egg.
You can’t make something out of nothing.
J
Jesus4Me
Guest
I guess I just haven’t been able to quite get to that understanding yet on this subject. I am human, and I struggle. Believe me, I have read every post responding to this question because I too am looking for an understanding. This is the one Church ‘teaching’ that I don’t understand completely. It doesn’t necessarily mean I’m for ABC and not NFP - I just struggle with determining the difference.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I do pray about it and will continue to do so.
S
Shiann
Guest
I pray you find clarity
M
MooCowSteph
Guest
I think the previous posters have done an exceptional job explaining the basic moral difference between contraception and NFP. I am sorry to be blunt, but if you do not see the difference than I am left with the conclusion that you choose not to because it is easier to use a condom and thus sin than to trust God. You must pray about this! You will never understand it or come to believe in the benefits of a natural embrace unless you pray!!
I didn’t check the profiles of those who disagree with the Church, but if you are Catholic, you must realize that you are disbelieving in an infallible teaching of the Church. In being Catholic, you profess to believe what the Church professes to be true, and the Church professes that ABC is mortally sinful.
I didn’t check the profiles of those who disagree with the Church, but if you are Catholic, you must realize that you are disbelieving in an infallible teaching of the Church. In being Catholic, you profess to believe what the Church professes to be true, and the Church professes that ABC is mortally sinful.
- Status