How is NFP morally different to condoms?

[Tim_Hayes]

Some people here need to get some understanding.
If you are a young couple with some kids and you find yourself in a position where it is genuinely extremely dangerous to your health and or potential children, ala some very bad genetic diseaseand. Then go and get sterilised.

It is nigh on impossible for a young couple to live together properly and care for children etc without engaging in sexual relations.

Why does the Church genreally not allow priest and nuns to reside together, it is becasue of the substantially increased probability of a sexual relationship occuring, hell and thats not even allowing for a strong love/sexual desire in place allready.

It would be impossible to be physically affectionate to my wife, live in the same house and do this for the next 40 -50 years without indulging in sexual relations with my wife.

The reason I include children is because the only way to avoid sex would be to completely change the relationship with the wife, so there is no physicla intimacy. Now you tell me, the children are going to grow up in a house where mum and dad barely if ever physically touch each other, even if just for a hug etc.

There will be definitive relationship problems for those children, when they are adult enough to have their own relationships, why because they will do exactly as their parents have done or not done as the case may be.

Remember

 

[MooCowSteph]

Tim Hayes:

Some people here need to get some understanding.
If you are a young couple with some kids and you find yourself in a position where it is genuinely extremely dangerous to your health and or potential children, ala some very bad genetic diseaseand. Then go and get sterilised.

Tim, many people here have a great deal of understanding - we understand that the Church, the one we view as the Pillar of Truth, teaches that sterilization is a grave sin. In order to be Catholic (not a cafeteria catholic) one must accept the teachings of the One True Church as truth and accept them with a whole heart.
Tim Hayes:

It is nigh on impossible for a young couple to live together properly and care for children etc without engaging in sexual relations.

Why does the Church genreally not allow priest and nuns to reside together, it is becasue of the substantially increased probability of a sexual relationship occuring, hell and thats not even allowing for a strong love/sexual desire in place allready.

It would be impossible to be physically affectionate to my wife, live in the same house and do this for the next 40 -50 years without indulging in sexual relations with my wife.

The reason I include children is because the only way to avoid sex would be to completely change the relationship with the wife, so there is no physicla intimacy. Now you tell me, the children are going to grow up in a house where mum and dad barely if ever physically touch each other, even if just for a hug etc.

There will be definitive relationship problems for those children, when they are adult enough to have their own relationships, why because they will do exactly as their parents have done or not done as the case may be.

I would have to agree with you here. It would be unnatural for a married couple to never engage in sexual relations. Good thing the church doesn’t expect them to! A woman has a great deal of time each month in which conception is virtually impossible. The chance is in fact about the same as with sterilization, since even that isn’t 100%! Good news for all those couples not having sex.

 

[john_ennis]

cheddarsox:

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

No, to be “morally equal” to the use of condoms, etc., NFP would have to be a means of trying to use the gift of sexuality at a particular time while thwarting the God-created consequences which would occur as a result of that instance.
That doesn’t mean NFP can’t be used immorally. Family planning isn’t always done morally. But it can be.
But artificial contraception can’t be–for another reason. It’s not because it is a way of avoiding a pregnancy that it’s necessarily wrong–it’s because it seeks to engage in sexual intercourse anyway without allowing the God-created consequences of that specific act, making the act something other than what it was graciously created for.

Still think they can be both wrong for the same reason, since they can both have as their end the prevention of pregnancy?
Do you think that dieting, and binging and purging, are both morally equal, since they have as their end the avoidance of gaining weight?

Peace.
John

 

[cheddarsox]

carynh:

I’ve never heard of anyone who used condoms who said, “Oh well if it fails we’ll just deal with the consequences.” No the purpose of the condom is to completely avoid the consequences. And when that doesn’t happen…

Allow me to introduce myself! There was a period of time in our marriage when we did use condoms, but were absolutely willing to deal with the consequences. We used them the way some use NFP, we wanted to postpone our next child, but were open to a child if pregnancy occured.

And a pregnancy did occur, just as some pregancies occured while using NFP, and we had and loved the child just the same.

So, I am honored to be the person who enables you to see the world a little differently. Not everyone who uses ABC is an idolatrer who is totally opposed to the will of God and life. And, there are people who have chosen abortion to deal with NFP failures. Catholic teachings may be black and white, but people and situations are not.

I am not dissing NFP. But be careful of the assumptions you make about the rest of humanity.

cheddar

 

[MaryB23]

cheddarsox:

Allow me to introduce myself! There was a period of time in our marriage when we did use condoms, but were absolutely willing to deal with the consequences. We used them the way some use NFP, we wanted to postpone our next child, but were open to a child if pregnancy occured.

And a pregnancy did occur, just as some pregancies occured while using NFP, and we had and loved the child just the same.

So, I am honored to be the person who enables you to see the world a little differently. Not everyone who uses ABC is an idolatrer who is totally opposed to the will of God and life. And, there are people who have chosen abortion to deal with NFP failures. Catholic teachings may be black and white, but people and situations are not.

I am not dissing NFP. But be careful of the assumptions you make about the rest of humanity.

cheddar

I’m just curious. Why, if you were OK with becoming pregnant (although preferring to postpone it for a while), did you choose condoms over NFP?

 

[cheddarsox]

john ennis:

Still think they can be both wrong for the same reason, since they can both have as their end the prevention of pregnancy?
Do you think that dieting, and binging and purging, are both morally equal, since they have as their end the avoidance of gaining weight?

Peace.
John

No, that would be rather like saying abstinence is equal to abortion. But I do think it is OK to drink diet soda, even though you are getting the pleasure of sweetness without the calories.

But, I am not a Catholic. So I am not bound to follow the teachings of the church. And I recognize that that is a critical issue here. For Catholics, NFP and condoms are not equally moral, because condoms are absolutely against the teachings of the faith, therefore, Catholics should not use condoms.

but for others…the morality would seem to be about the same.

I do not think that the ends always, neccessarily justify the means. But neither does condom use always equate a selfish heart, a person who denies God in their lives, sexual licentiousness, an unwillingness to parent children that may result of ABC failure etc. etc.

It is not that simple.

You can keep telling me that my marriage was better, that I was more loving, that our sex was more of a union when we used NFP, but my husband and I will tell you differently.

I think that NFP is the answer for many couples and families. I think the church has every right to teach it and expect Catholics to fall in line. But that doesn’t make every arguement given about it true.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

MaryB23:

I’m just curious. Why, if you were OK with becoming pregnant (although preferring to postpone it for a while), did you choose condoms over NFP?

We had two small children, my hubby worked and went to school full time. Getting together intimately was something of a struggle time and energy wise. I was breast feeding, but having irregular periods. I had, several years earlier, conceived while FULLY breastfeeding, only 4 months after my first son’s birth.

So, with cycles all out of whack, we went to condoms. We continued to use them when my cycles returned to normal, if we wanted to have sex during my suspected fertile times. But there was a break, and I got pregnant. No biggie, we wanted a third child. But due to finances etc, would have postponed it.

Three was all we wanted however, and we did choose sterilization after the last birth. Our sex life is wonderful. We can fully concentrate on one another because we don’t fear another pregnancy. I am a kinder mother, because I don’t feel that my children are an unwanted burden, or a cross I bear, or something to offer up for the poor souls in purgatory. (something I heard my mother, who wanted two and had six, say all to often when I was growing up…by the way, I am number six)

I wanted to have my children when I was young, and I wanted them fairly close together. I grew up in a home where I always knew I was a mistake, with a mother who constantly told me she was too tired, and had done EVERYTHING too many times with my siblings to do it all again with me. I wasn’t allowed to be on teams, take part in band, be in the school play etc, because she was too old and too tired. Yes, I am absolutely certain this had a huge affect on my choices when we felt our family was complete.

cheddar

 

[felra]

cheddarsox:

So, I am honored to be the person who enables you to see the world a little differently. Not everyone who uses ABC is an idolatrer who is totally opposed to the will of God and life. …Catholic teachings may be black and white, but people and situations are not.

I am not dissing NFP. But be careful of the assumptions you make about the rest of humanity.

cheddar

On this forum we are addressing people who profess to be “Catholic”, not the “rest of humanity”. I believe that every professed Catholic who uses ABC** is** fundamentally an idolater and is opposed to the wil of God, if not explicity, then at least implictly.

Catholic teachings are based on the Truth, and Jesus Christ came to give His followers the means to follow Him faithfully and do what is impossible by man’s estimation. Its just that too many Catholics do not daily seek to take up the Cross given to them in the circumstamces in their life, deter from the road to Calvary, and find all kinds of reasons and rationalizations why this certain difficult/challenging teaching surely is not for everyone. Jesus did state, "How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.” (**Matthew, ***Chapter 7:14) *

 

[milimac]

I like that analogy Shiann. Another one along the same lines was given by Christopher West who has many talks on JPII’s Theology of the Body:

A person passes by a church. There are basically 3 things he can do:

1. Go into the church and perhaps say some prayers or worship. (Sexual intercourse)
2. Pass by the church – perhaps it is an inopportune time for him to come in and pray. (Abstinence)
3. Go into church and perform some act of irreverance or desecration. (Contraception)
   (end of Christopher West’s example; the following is my commentary)

Now perhaps someone has told a certain skateboarder that the church is a fun place to go ride his skateboard. In fact many people have told him the same thing and he’s done it many times and doesn’t really see anything wrong with it – after all he doesn’t do any more damage than the people who come to church in their wheelchairs.

Neither he nor the person who passed by the church without coming in felt like worshipping at the moment, but the skateboarder – whether he intended to be or not – was irreverant, while the person who passed by was not.

The bottom line is that our body and what we do with it is a big part of the consideration. The intent of the skateboarder is a big consideration, perhaps even the major consideration, but it is not the sole consideration. It is imperative that he come to understand that what he actually did with his body was irreverant, even though he may not have had that intention in his mind.

 

[PLAL]

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.

If you are contemplating whether to use condoms or NFP, here are a few things I think you need to consider….

-GOD VS. MAN

The ultimate root of contraception is it denies God is God. The attitude behind it is, “I am the one who ultimately decides whether a human being will come into the world.” This goes against the 1st Commandment – “I am the Lord your God. You shall not have strange gods before me”.

Therefore contraception is wrong because the intent of the contracepting couple is to wrest total control of procreation for themselves and leave God out of the picture!!! The NFP couple knows that in regard to procreation, there are three involved: husband, wife, and God. In other words, the NFP couple makes a proposal to God, but will accept God’s will. The contracepting couple tries to take total control!

-ALTERING THE BODY

Contraception is wrong because it is an alteration, a harming, or a destruction of a healthy, normal, major, functioning system of the body: fertility. NFP does not alter the body at all.

-CONTRACEPTION PROMOTES ABORTION

It is noteworthy that as acceptance and use of contraception have increased in our society, so have acceptance and use of abortion. Couples who unintentionally conceive a child while using contraception are far more likely to resort to abortion than others.

-CONTRACEPTIONS RELATIONSHIP WITH ABORTION

Contraception versus Abortion by Msgr. Vincent Foy http://www.catholicsagainstcontraception.com/contraception_vs_abortion.htm

Also, Father William Saunders’ outstanding article “Contraception has grave consequences,”

catholicherald.com/saunders/03ws/ws030814.htm

 

[PLAL]

continued…

-CONTRACEPTIONS RELATIONSHIP WITH DIVORCE

Please see Couple to Couple League: http://www.ccli.org/nfp/divorce.shtml

-MARITAL UNION = TOTAL SELF GIFT

The marital union is a total self-gift–one cannot give oneself totally to another when using contraception because as Pope John Paul II taught, the “language of total self-gift is overlaid through contraception by a totally contradictory language.” The husband says to the wife through contraception, “I am yours, honey, but not as a father.” The wife says to the husband, “I am yours, honey, but not as a mother.” Such is not a self-gift or self-donation.

Contraception also attacks the body by altering it whereas NFP does not.

-THE MARITAL LANGUAGE

Condoms alter the very nature of the marriage act. The marital embrace is a language of the body. This language states: I am totally yours, i.e., each spouse “speaks” that language with his or her body to the other spouse. Condoms (or any contraception) alters this language. Now the body speaks seemingly one way: “I am yours in the marital embrace totally;” and the condom speaks contrary: “I am not yours as a possible father; as a possible mother (if the wife should use contraception of some form).” As John Paul II, this is a lie and the couple who uses condoms or other forms of contraception “manipulate and degrade human sexuality and with it themselves.” The language of the body is “overlaid through contraception by an objectively contradictory language.” See the Apostolic Exhortation on the Family, no. 32.

-MEANS VS THE ENDS

Many seem to have a hard time understanding the Church’s teaching on birth control because they don’t distinguish between the “means” and the “ends.” Thus, they equate (avoidance) NFP with artifical birth control because the desired “end” of both is no pregnancy. And, I can understand why the response that NFP is always open to life, does not persaude some; logically, it would seem that if we maintain that NFP is more accurate than condoms, and thus pregnancy can (and more likely will) result from using the latter, that too is open to life.

But the difference is the “means” of avoiding pregnancy. With NFP, the “means” is sacrificing the pleasure of sex; while with artificial birth control, the “means” is destroying the natural functioning of the body so that the pleasure of sex may be enjoyed without a pregnancy. If there is sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy, then we must sacrifice the pleasure to obtain that end.

-THOSE PRACTICING NFP RARELY DIVORCE

While the divorce rate in the general population is at 50%, the NFP couples experience a rate of 2%. There’s a lot to be said for basing a marriage on trust on the will of God.

If you have other questions on Contraception (including the use of Condoms vs. NFP)….

A great source to ask questions is Judie Brown (Pro-Life) at EWTN…

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/conference.htm

Another great resource is Christopher West’s “Theology of the Body” at

http://www.christopherwest.com/

Here are some downloadable files from Christopher West’s website…

http://www.christopherwest.com/hearnow.asp

This is also a Must Read – “Contraception: Why Not” by Janet Smith

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Contraception vs. Bible brochure

omsoul.com/item395.html

HOPE THIS HELPS!!!

 

[PLAL]

Finally, The Couple to Couple League has a great website including topics on Morality, Marriage Building, Contraception & More…

ccli.org/nfp/index.php

 

[LittleDeb]

Contraception: contra=against; ception=beginning

IF it is “against the beginning” it is contraception.

For those who believe condoms and NFP are the same because they are both “contraception” are incorrect on one major point. ALL forms, and I mean ALL forms, of contraception cannot be used to aid in the achievement of pregnancy.

NFP and abstinence can both be exercised to achieve pregnancy.

For my husband and I, and for Mike 182 and his wife NFP is also helpful in periodic infertility to acheive pregnancy. It is recommended to abstain for certain days leading up to ovulation so the sperm count is higher. No one is going to convince me that the teenager who abstains and those of us who abstain before ovulation to raise our sperm counts are contracepting.

Sadly for the children who have grown up believing they are a “contraception failure,” they are not alone. If a parent thinks children are a burden or pregnancy is something to fear then that usually spreads to all the children, even the ones who were supposedly planned. If children are a burden then even one child is a burden. There is no magic burden-less number.

The kids I know whose parents thought the last ones were unwanted then the first ones felt unwanted too. The kids I know whose parents thought all children were a blessing and celebrated a pregnancy (9 and 11 children in these families) all went on to have large families themselves and are very close.

Contraception (condoms, spermicides etc.) is “against the beginning.” So I ask “against the beginning” of whom or what? Condom failure create a life that is a contraception failure. NFP creates a life that is an NFP success. NFP doesn’t fail…it succeeds in life.

 

[PLAL]

cheddarsox:

we went to condoms.

, and we did choose sterilization after the last birth.

Contraception and Sterilization

**

Christians have always condemned contraceptive sex. Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law. **

More catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Gen 38: 9-10
usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis38.htm

Deut 23:1
usccb.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy23.htm

---

**
**

 

[PLAL]

marina:

No to sex is purely for procreation and nothing more.

LOL… tell that to all the CATHOLIC teenagers.

also… what about menopause… or infertility?

Let me explain this to you in Secular Terms - Here is my view on contraception…

Catholic teaching states abortion is a grave sin since it is the destruction of human life. You are right there are many Catholics (your example some Catholic teens) who are wrongly practicing contraception. Catholics who pick and choose the elements of the church which they feel they want are called “Cafeteria Catholics”. These are not “Practicing Catholics”. Catholic teaching states Contraception is wrong but Natural Family Planning (NFP) is OK since God is still in control of the decision making process.

I look at human sexuality as having 2 variables. There is “gratification” & “openess to new life”. With contraception you want the “gratification” without being “open to new life”. I think if God wanted us to have one of these variables without the other, God would have created another action. God’s Natural Law has both “gratification” & “openess to new life” as ONE ACTION. Who are we to tell the Creator this was a mistake?

Those who feel contraception is morally OK must defend other sexual acts which takes the “gratification” but leaves the “openess to new life” behind like homosexuality (man & man), pedifilia (man & boy), masterbation (man with himself) & beastiality (man & animal) all of which are comdemned in the Bible. This is just the way I look at it.

---

Face it, Contraception is like a Bulimic! With *Contraception *people want the “gratification” but are not “open to life” which is contrary to God’s Natural Plan.

A Bulimic is similar since they want the “gratification” from food but then stick their finger down their throat because they do not want the “weight” which comes with it!!

 

[felra]

cheddarsox:

We had two small children, my hubby worked and went to school full time. Getting together intimately was something of a struggle time and energy wise. I was breast feeding, but having irregular periods. I had, several years earlier, conceived while FULLY breastfeeding, only 4 months after my first son’s birth.

So, with cycles all out of whack, we went to condoms. We continued to use them when my cycles returned to normal, if we wanted to have sex during my suspected fertile times. But there was a break, and I got pregnant. No biggie, we wanted a third child. But due to finances etc, would have postponed it.

Three was all we wanted however, and we did choose sterilization after the last birth. Our sex life is wonderful. We can fully concentrate on one another because we don’t fear another pregnancy. I am a kinder mother, because I don’t feel that my children are an unwanted burden, or a cross I bear, or something to offer up for the poor souls in purgatory. (something I heard my mother, who wanted two and had six, say all to often when I was growing up…by the way, I am number six)

I wanted to have my children when I was young, and I wanted them fairly close together. I grew up in a home where I always knew I was a mistake, with a mother who constantly told me she was too tired, and had done EVERYTHING too many times with my siblings to do it all again with me. I wasn’t allowed to be on teams, take part in band, be in the school play etc, because she was too old and too tired. Yes, I am absolutely certain this had a huge affect on my choices when we felt our family was complete.

cheddar

Such a convincing testimony and rationalization for the “Catholic” use of ABC.

My question for you: How do you feel about that someone who reads or hears or observes your “positive” testimony and rationalization for the use of ABC and is swayed similiarly to use ABC themselves?

 

[Tim_Hayes]

It is amazing the slant that is put on NFP to make it acceptable catholic practice.

The whole idea of the allowing of NFP is that the couple are aiming NOT to get pregnant, and the Church affirms it so by stating that there should be serious reasons for using it.

When my wife and I practice NFP we are not open to life, we know that modern science allows us to know exactly when women are fertile or otherwise (for most women that is).

What has been done is to come up with all sorts of reasons why avoidance of pregnancy with NFP is acceptable and not condom use as an example.

Go back and read what the Church Fathers say in the first say 500 years. If you had proposed to them some method of deliberatley avoiding pregnancy whilst allowing sexual gratification to occur they would have excommunicated you for such a practice. The whole basic tenant was that marriage was mainly for the procreation of children and that it was God who decided whether you had zero kids or a dozen kids. What was the reason for that, it was becasue you were supposed to place your faith completely in God and let him decide how many children you had.

The whole point of NFP excuse is that ultimatley it is a natural method of contraception.

Now such reason as a man and woman can’t have relations for a few days whilst ovulation is occuring is good for 'a sacrifice" are totally off ball. The whole idea of sacrifice is that we willingly make the sacrifice, not becasue we are forced.

Now I again go back to the example of a man and woman who have some children but medical science says mum will seriously risk death if she gets pregnanat again. I suggest it is impossible for mum and dad no.t to engage in sexual realtions ever again, so we are left witht the fact that they will practice some form of contraceptive sex (most probalby sterilisation), yet to anyone who does not know this they could be the most loving giving Catholics known.

Yet if we are to believe that contraception in their case is intrinsicaly evil then we have to accep that they will be damned.

Why do you think predestination takes such a foothold in various communities Christian There are many people with such great problems/adversities in life that they start off so far behind the 8 ball compared to others that it requires an awful lot of mercy by Christ for those people to get to heaven, becasue they will sin so frequently and so greatly in their journey to Christ, and indeed on their death they will still be committing many sins, yet Christ will see their effort and reward them with his mercy.

Absolute rules such as all ABC at any time under any circumstance= hell, require predestination to be true if the first precept is true.

 

[cheddarsox]

LittleDeb:

Sadly for the children who have grown up believing they are a “contraception failure,” they are not alone. If a parent thinks children are a burden or pregnancy is something to fear then that usually spreads to all the children, even the ones who were supposedly planned. If children are a burden then even one child is a burden. There is no magic burden-less number.

The kids I know whose parents thought the last ones were unwanted then the first ones felt unwanted too. The kids I know whose parents thought all children were a blessing and celebrated a pregnancy (9 and 11 children in these families) all went on to have large families themselves and are very close.

Fortunately, in my family, the earliest “wanted” two, were enough older that by the time my mother really got negative, they were out of the house. When I talk to my oldest sister and we talk about growing up, we realize that we were raised by very different people, in very different families. I am glad she did not feel unwanted due to what came later.

My best friends, growing up, came from a family of 9. And it was clear that their parents were truly open to life! Sometimes kids got lost in the shuffle, and wished there was more personal time for them, but they did all feel very loved. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with a large family. I spent most of my time at their house, because I felt more welcome there than in my own.

Maybe it was God’s will, that I realized I am not that blessed woman who raised 9 children with a smile. Maybe it was God’s will that I realize this and take good care of a smaller family. Maybe it was not and I will burn in Hell for it. But, my kids know I love them, know they were not a burden or a mistake. I’ve asked them, we’ve spoken about it.

So, I may burn in Hell, but I have prevented that particular hell on earth for them.

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

Contraception and Sterilization

**

Christians have always condemned contraceptive **sex. Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law.

Thank you for those link and information. I am not Christian. I am not trying to get any Catholic to go against the teachings of their Church. The point of a church is to go, learn and practice the faith.

When I was a Catholic, I did follow the teachings of the Church. The only way to work with a process is to follow it and allow it to transform your life. Blessings to all of you! And to your support of your faith when others question it.

cheddar

 

[felra]

Tim Hayes:

The whole idea of the allowing of NFP is that the couple are aiming NOT to get pregnant, and the Church affirms it so by stating that there should be serious reasons for using it.

The whole point of NFP excuse is that ultimatley it is a natural method of contraception.

Now such reason as a man and woman can’t have relations for a few days whilst ovulation is occuring is good for 'a sacrifice" are totally off ball. The whole idea of sacrifice is that we willingly make the sacrifice, not becasue we are forced.

Now I again go back to the example of a man and woman who have some children but medical science says mum will seriously risk death if she gets pregnanat again. I suggest it is impossible for mum and dad no.t to engage in sexual realtions ever again, so we are left witht the fact that they will practice some form of contraceptive sex (most probalby sterilisation), yet to anyone who does not know this they could be the most loving giving Catholics known.

Yet if we are to believe that contraception in their case is intrinsicaly evil then we have to accep that they will be damned.

Why do you think predestination takes such a foothold in various communities Christian There are many people with such great problems/adversities in life that they start off so far behind the 8 ball compared to others that it requires an awful lot of mercy by Christ for those people to get to heaven, becasue they will sin so frequently and so greatly in their journey to Christ, and indeed on their death they will still be committing many sins, yet Christ will see their effort and reward them with his mercy.

Absolute rules such as all ABC at any time under any circumstance= hell, require predestination to be true if the first precept is true.

The above entire post is an impotent (no pun intended) exercise in “I want my cake (sexual pleasure) and eat it too, and this is why …”. Be honest, take away the sexual pleasure aspect, and how many folks would still be trying to make the case against the Church that ABC and NFP are one in the same—none, they would all be practicing NFP. There is not one documented case of anyone dying due to absence/lack of sexual intercourse.

The whole point about NFP is the responsible regulation of childbirth in mature, thoughtful, prayerful discernment in cooperation with God’s will.

The only fact about couples taking recourse to ABC when faced with a difficult situation is a refusal to take up the Cross given to them and follow after Jesus. To believe anything else is a self-deception borne of the father of lies.

Matthew**, Chapter 7:21 “**"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

Matthew**, *Chapter 16:24-25 “***Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”