How is NFP morally different to condoms?

[MooCowSteph]

Jesus4Me:

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.

It’s OK to struggle with an understanding of this teaching. It’s NOT OK, however, to go against the teaching or believe it’s not true. There are teachings that all of us (or most, anyway) have a hard time understanding. I for one, have a problem understanding some of the teachings surrounding the Blessed Mother. But I still believe they are true. You are trying to understand, and that’s wonderful. God will bless you for that.

 

[mike182d]

MooCowSteph:

You are trying to understand, and that’s wonderful. God will bless you for that.

If someone here completely understands the Trinity and can explain it to me, I’m all ears.

 

[marina]

Shiann:

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.

When you say marital embrace… you mean sex? sexual relations, yes?
Assuming this is a yes… you are saying a married couple can never enjoy the pleasure of sex without having the possibility of a pregnancy occur?
What about menopause or an infertile man… no sex?
Sex is purely for procreation and nothing more?

 

[MariaG]

A problem I see here with some of the arguments that are focusing on bodily fluids and God’s will.

It is quite apparent that greenfrog is aware of the fact that with “proper use” of condoms, there is still a failure rate of 15-19%. That means everytime the marital act takes place, there is a possiblilty and openess to life. That means there is an exchange of fluids. And it also means that he seems willing to allow God to choose when the condom use will fail. Although some may use condoms with the intent to deny all life, clearly that is not his intent. So in fact, he is actually more open to life than those who abuse NFP.

When using NFP, it is much more accurate, and the possibility for failure when used properly is miniscule. So how is it that a couple who faithfully practices NFP but does not abuse it, how are they more trusting of God’s Will? The failure rate is much less than a condom, yet they are more “trusting” of God’s will?

Truly, for me up to this point, the “God’s will” argument completely fails when talking about condom use and NFP.

Maria

 

[felra]

marina:

When you say marital embrace… you mean sex? sexual relations, yes?
Assuming this is a yes… you are saying a married couple can never enjoy the pleasure of sex without having the possibility of a pregnancy occur?
What about menopause or an infertile man… no sex?
Sex is purely for procreation and nothing more?

Yes to marital embrace=sexual intercourse.

No to sex is purely for procreation and nothing more.

For a Catholic sacramental marriage each and every act of marital embrace to be morally licit must contain the dual fold aspects of 1) openness to new life (unless nature or other unintended causes render pregnancy an impossibility) and 2) unitive.

 

[marina]

Shiann:

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.)

So why do you wear a seat belt in your car? ( or do you?)

Why do you take medications for an illness… once again or do you?

This nonesense list can go on and on.

Are we not interfering with God’s Will by preventing death by a car accident… or death by an illness?

God gave us all a brain. Is it not His will for us to THINK?

 

[marina]

felra:

Yes to marital embrace=sexual intercourse.

No to sex is purely for procreation and nothing more.

For a Catholic sacramental marriage each and every act of marital embrace to be morally licit must contain the dual fold aspects of 1) openness to new life (unless nature or other unintended causes render pregnancy an impossibility) and 2) unitive.

No to sex is purely for procreation and nothing more.

LOL… tell that to all the CATHOLIC teenagers.

also… what about menopause… or infertility?

 

[masterjedi747]

mike182d:

If someone here completely understands the Trinity and can explain it to me, I’m all ears.

Oh! Oh!..Seriously? I’ll bet you weren’t really expecting an answer to this, were you? ​

Now, first things first. Since the Trinity is a supernatural mystery, of course you know we will never be able to completely understand it. But we can sure try to do our best.

And now…here goes nothing. God is, by His very nature, inherently Trinitarian. He necessarily exists as one complete God with Three Divine Persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is also inherently infinite and perfect in every way. So let’s just say that the Father exists simply as Himself, God. Congratulations. That’s the easy part.

Now, we know that we were all created in the image and likeness of God. This is seen through the very nature of our souls. We have self-knowledge of ourselves. We know that we exist, and we know about our own personal qualities, etc… Animals are different from us in this way, because they are not fully rational and self-aware. God is like us (or rather, we are like Him) in this manner, because He is also completely self-aware. But His knowledge of himself (self-knowledge) is so utterly complete and infinite that it became (or, rather, IS), in and of itself, a Second Person, complete and similar to the Father in every possible way imaginable. He even has his own personality. He is called “the Son” because he is “eternally begotten from the Father. God from God. Light from Light. True God from True God.” Jesus Christ is the self-knowledge of God the Father. But both are still completely one and the same God. Neither one could exist without the other. Jesus could not exist without the Father, and if the Father existed without the Son, the Father would therefore be imperfect in his self-knowledge, and therefore not God.

Now, the love of God the Father and God the Son for each other is also, in and of itself, entirely complete and infinite. God the Holy Spirit is thus literally the complete and infinite love of the Father and the Son for each other personified. We say that the Holy Spirit is “spirated” as the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. He is “eternally proceeding from both the Father and the Son.” And again, He could not exist without the eternal spiration of the Father and the Son, just as they could not exist as a perfectly loving God without Him.

Absolutely nothing about the three persons is different in any way, except for their inherent relationship to one another, and thus their own individual personalities. None of them could exist as the perfect God that they are without each other. And God (who is, by definition, perfect) could not exist in any form at all if He were not Trinitarian. All three Persons together naturally form one complete, unified, Trinitarian God.

Questions? Comments? ​

slowly picks up the de-railed thread and places it back on track

 

[Shiann]

marina:

When you say marital embrace… you mean sex? sexual relations, yes?

Yup

Assuming this is a yes… you are saying a married couple can never enjoy the pleasure of sex without having the possibility of a pregnancy occur?

Nope.

Married couples must do nothing intentional before, during, or after the sex to keep conception from occuring. (Those who practice NFP indefinately for non-grave reasons included).

What about menopause or an infertile man… no sex?

Sex is purely for procreation and nothing more?

Again, nope. In all sexual experiences conception must be allowed to occur if it is God’s will regardless of the probability of conception. (i.e. menopausal women, infertility, etc.)

 

[Shiann]

marina:

So why do you wear a seat belt in your car? ( or do you?)

Why do you take medications for an illness… once again or do you?

This nonesense list can go on and on.

Are we not interfering with God’s Will by preventing death by a car accident… or death by an illness?

God gave us all a brain. Is it not His will for us to THINK?

All strawman arguments.

 

[marina]

Shiann:
Yup

Nope.

Married couples must do nothing intentional before, during, or after the sex to keep conception from occuring. (Those who practice NFP indefinately for non-grave reasons included).

Again, nope. In all sexual experiences conception must be allowed to occur if it is God’s will regardless of the probability of conception. (i.e. menopausal women, infertility, etc.)

LOL what a load of nonsense

 

[felra]

MariaG:

A problem I see here with some of the arguments that are focusing on bodily fluids and God’s will.

It is quite apparent that greenfrog is aware of the fact that with “proper use” of condoms, there is still a failure rate of 15-19%. That means everytime the marital act takes place, there is a possiblilty and openess to life. That means there is an exchange of fluids. And it also means that he seems willing to allow God to choose when the condom use will fail. Although some may use condoms with the intent to deny all life, clearly that is not his intent. So in fact, he is actually more open to life than those who abuse NFP.

When using NFP, it is much more accurate, and the possibility for failure when used properly is miniscule. So how is it that a couple who faithfully practices NFP but does not abuse it, how are they more trusting of God’s Will? The failure rate is much less than a condom, yet they are more “trusting” of God’s will?

Truly, for me up to this point, the “God’s will” argument completely fails when talking about condom use and NFP.

Maria

So how many holes poked in a condom does it take to make it morally licit to use? …just kidding …

An interesting argument to compare the “intent” of openness to life based on condom “failure rate”, and NFP “abuse” as a basis for the moral licitnes of condom use. I do not believe any serious Catholic would buy this argument.

Trusting in “God’s will” involves and engages responsible parenthood/family planning. Recourse to artificial means (“just in case God”) hardly sounds like a “trusting” relationship. IMO, you entire argument above can be summed up as “I want my cake and eat it too.”

Here is what the Church has to say about intent and means in determining the morality of actions:

"The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (*Catechism of the Catholic Church *2399).

“‘An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.” (*CCC *1759).

 

[Shiann]

marina:

No to sex is purely for procreation and nothing more.

No one here is forwarding this philosophy. Spouses are encouraged to enjoy their sexuality with or without conception. They just need to remain open to it.

LOL… tell that to all the CATHOLIC teenagers.

Just because there are people out there having sex outside these boundries doesn’t make it any less wrong.

also… what about menopause… or infertility?

These people can enjoy sex in a married relationship if they are remaining fully open to conception. No matter what the probability.

 

[Shiann]

felra:

So how many holes poked in a condom does it take to make it morally licit to use? …just kidding …

An interesting argument to compare the “intent” of openness to life based on condom “failure rate”, and NFP “abuse” as a basis for the moral licitnes of condom use. I do not believe any serious Catholic would buy this argument.

Trusting in “God’s will” involves and engages responsible parenthood/family planning. Recourse to artificial means ('just in case God) hardly sounds like a “trusting” relationship. IMO, you entire argument above can be summed up as “I want my cake and eat it too.”

Here is what the Church has to say about intent and means in determining the morality of actions:

"The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (*Catechism of the Catholic Church *2399).

“‘An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.” (*CCC *1759).

:clapping:

 

[Shiann]

marina:

LOL… what a bunch of nonsense

You are completely welcome to your opinion. Thanks for sharing.

 

[marina]

Shiann:

You are completely welcome to your opinion. Thanks for sharing.

You’re welcome

 

[felra]

Shiann:

You are completely welcome to your opinion. Thanks for sharing.

Yes, we can all have and share our opinions. What matters is what the Church teaches and if we are thinking with the mind of the Church, which has the person of Jesus Christ Himself as its head. I hope that the purpose of our discussions here is to arive more at this goal. God bless.

 

[Shiann]

felra:

Yes, we can all have and share our opinions. What matters is what the Church teaches and if we are thinking with the mind of the Church, which has the person of Jesus Christ Himself as its head. I hope that the purpose of our discussions here is to arive more at this goal. God bless.

 

[cheddarsox]

MooCowSteph:

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 disagree with the Church’s line of reasoning that one method of contraception is OK, but the other is not. I am not defending ABC here, but questioning (along with Greenfrog and a few others) the moral superiority of NFP.

I agree with many posters here, that NFP can be used in a way that is morally consistent with the Church’s teachings, but also feel that in many instances it is used in a manner that makes it morally equal to the use of condoms or other barrier devices.

cheddar

 

[mercygate]

marina:

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.

Marina, I have read all your posts on this thread. Your position seems to be pretty much the position of most people today.

But if you scratch the surface and look at this in a systematic, logical, and loving way, starting with the grounding of natural law (which is not the law of the jungle), it really does start to make sense.

A good starting point is Christopher White’s short handbook, Good News about Sex and Marriage. It is in Q & A format – I think you’ll appreciate the tone of the questions. One I remember went something like this: “So when is the Catholic Church going to come out of the stone age? Psychologists say that masturbation is not only normal, but it’s good for you.”