How is NFP morally different to condoms?

[felra]

cheddarsox:

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

The purpose (“point”) and mission of the Catholic Church is to be in service of the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Truth founded on Jesus Christ for the salvation of souls.

The Catholic Church is about a Person, not a universal, cosmic, “everything is god” process that acts upon you without your willful charge and personal encounter with the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[char34]

Hope I don’t offend anyone here, but there can never be a serious enough reason to avoid pregnancy if it causes someone to commit serious sin. If you have prayed about it, and still find it unbearable to abstain, then perhaps God has other plans? Contraception is always a sin for married couples, pregnancy is never a sin. Quite simple, really!

 

[josea]

Hi everybody,

In the last year I have been thinking a lot about the difference between NFP and ABC.

This is what I saw: There is a REAL and fundamental difference between the two mentalities.

The difficulty for those who do not see the difference lays in the erroneous thought that NFP is a method to avoid having children and enjoy only one aspect of the act rejecting the reproductive one. Couples that for serious reasons can not have any more children, or may postpone the birth of a child, might be engaged in the type of relations that the Church allow as licit: having sexual relations when nature makes impossible reproduction, as occurs in the case of menopause, natural sterility etc…

In the same way the Church allows as licit to have sexual relations when we know that reproduction can not take place and we limit ourselves to those times.

ABC it is not the same. It is a different act: ABC actively renders the sexual act sterile; it is not the same kind of act as the one done in infertile times.

Limiting sexual relations to periods of time that we KNOW infertile does not act against the nature of the act.

I think the confusion comes when the Church condemns as a sinful the use of NFP when no serious reason alleged. In this case the act is open to life and by itself not sinful; the sin is to make the decision of avoiding reproduction without having a serious reason. Those are two different things that easily get confused.

Avoiding reproduction, therefore, is allowed only when serious reasons are present and there is not an active mean used before, during or after the act thought to directly avoid conception.

Regards,

Jose

 

[gardenswithkids]

Tim Hayes:

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.

How is NFP a forced sacrifice? The only force I can see is if one spouse insists on using NFP while the other either wants another baby *or *wants to force contraception. The Church teachings may allow NFP, but they do not force anyone to use it. That decision to make that sacrifice is left up to the married couple to decided.
Tim Hayes:

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…

I reject your premise. They do not have to use some type of contraception. NFP is available for just such types of circumstances. Josea’s post earlier on this thread bears a beautiful witness to such obedience to the Church teachings.
Tim Hayes:

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

I also reject the idea that all people who use contraception will be damned. While contraception is a serious sin, there are certain conditions that must be met before a sin is considered a mortal sin. I do not know who is in a state of grace or not. And many who may be in mortal sin for using contraception later come to repent what they did and seek forgiveness in the sacrament of reconciliation. I used contraception but had a complete change of heart and truly repent what I did. People who are sterilized frequently come to regret that decision, confess and recieve absolution. (But one should never go through with sterilization with the plan to get to confession after–that would be the sin of presumption, and you never know if you will live long enough to even get to confession.)

We have a loving and merciful God who gives us the sacraments and the Church teachings so that we can know His love and mercy. This teaching is difficult for many, but just because it’s difficult to understand or practice doesn’t mean it’s wrong. The teachings of the Church on marriage and sexuality are some of the most beautiful teachings of the Church.

 

[gardenswithkids]

cheddarsox:

But I do think it is OK to drink diet soda, even though you are getting the pleasure of sweetness without the calories.

I agree that it’s okay to drink diet soda, but no one argues that sugar substitutes are the same thing as sugar. We recognize they don’t have the calories and they are a substitute for the real thing. Contracepted sex is a substitute for the real thing.

 

[masterjedi747]

Is this discussion really still going on? :yawn:
Alright. I’ll say it one more time, for kicks:

1) Birth control is not intrinsically evil.
2) Contraception is an intrinsically evil form of birth control.
3) Abstinence is not intrinsically evil form of birth control.
4) NFP uses abstinence, not contraception.
5) NFP is not intrinsically evil.

What part of this logic are we not all comprehending?

 

[josea]

masterjedi747:

Is this discussion really still going on? :yawn:
Alright. I’ll say it one more time, for kicks:

1) Birth control is not intrinsically evil.
2) Contraception is an intrinsically evil form of birth control.
3) Abstinence is not intrinsically evil form of birth control.
4) NFP uses abstinence, not contraception.
5) NFP is not intrinsically evil.

What part of this logic are we not all comprehending?

I think the difficult thing is that the Church does not allow the use of NFP for no reason at all. That makes people confused.
Jose

 

[cheddarsox]

josea:

I think the difficult thing is that the Church does not allow the use of NFP for no reason at all. That makes people confused.
Jose

I think you are right Jose, I think that part does confuse people. It is not as easy as NFP, always right. Though the church does teach ABC always wrong. At least that part is simple.

cheddar

 

[cynic]

mike182d:

I know we are on the same team here, but on this point I must beg to differ.

In marriage, it is still possible to lust after your own wife, to see her as a means of attaining one’s own personal, sexual gratification. *All *men and women are called to live chaste lives, married people included.

Having sex whenever you want is not always conducive towards this end and it may be good to abstain periodically.

But that’s just my two cents

then why have sex at all if your not prepared for whatever reason, assuming for your sake it qulaifes as ‘grave’, that you do not want another child at the moment?

If it’s good to abstain periodically, if sex can be negative just by the fact that it satisfies desires, which can then lead to selfishness then how is any sex that is done when children are not the primary goal acceptable? Surely any degree of selfishness is bad, anything that isn’t entirely selfless bad (according to you). Then how is couples doing it cause they want to acceptable, to any degree?

Sure people who use NFP are ‘open’ to life in that they would accept a child if it happened (they would never abort it!), but they are also making a concerted effort to avoid conception. Open in theory, but trying to reduce the chance of this ‘openess’ leading to anything. Which doesn’t sound very open to me.

I personally don’t agree with you idea that sex will become selfish or bad just on the fact that it feels good or involves desire , where is the line, how much is too much? What exactly are the thoughts that should be going through the mind? It’s an ugly assumption to make.

 

[Shiann]

cynic:

then why have sex at all if your not prepared for whatever reason, assuming for your sake it qulaifes as ‘grave’, that you do not want another child at the moment?

If it’s good to abstain periodically, if sex can be negative just by the fact that it satisfies desires, which can then lead to selfishness then how is any sex that is done when children are not the primary goal acceptable? Surely any degree of selfishness is bad, anything that isn’t entirely selfless bad (according to you). Then how is couples doing it cause they want to acceptable, to any degree?

Sure people who use NFP are ‘open’ to life in that they would accept a child if it happened (they would never abort it!), but they are also making a concerted effort to avoid conception. Open in theory, but trying to reduce the chance of this ‘openess’ leading to anything. Which doesn’t sound very open to me.

I personally don’t agree with you idea that sex will become selfish or bad just on the fact that it feels good or involves desire , where is the line, how much is too much? What exactly are the thoughts that should be going through the mind? It’s an ugly assumption to make.

Have you ever given a gift because you wanted to impress someone, or thought you should? You are at the store trying to find something that will work as a gift, and you tie it up in a pretty bow…

Then there’s the day you are walking down the street and you find that PERFECT thing for a SPECIAL person and though there is no occassion you get it and give it to them with all the good thoughts and love for that person in your heart.

You’ve given a gift to each person. They both recieved your gift, and are please at your thoughtfullness and your generosity.

But one was given for YOU so YOU feel better inside or so YOU nullify some debt or obligation to them.

The other was given for THEM without thought of self. You gave it because you know THEY would like it/use it.

God knows when sex is for YOU or for YOUR SPOUSE.

 

[mike182d]

cynic:

If it’s good to abstain periodically, if sex can be negative just by the fact that it satisfies desires, which can then lead to selfishness then how is any sex that is done when children are not the primary goal acceptable? Surely any degree of selfishness is bad, anything that isn’t entirely selfless bad (according to you). Then how is couples doing it cause they want to acceptable, to any degree?

Is it “selfish” to eat food?

Does fasting defeat the purpose of eating at all?

Sex is not a product of lust, and you’re confusing the desires. That’s like saying eating and gluttony are the same thing.

 

[john_ennis]

josea:

Hi everybody,

In the last year I have been thinking a lot about the difference between NFP and ABC.

This is what I saw: There is a REAL and fundamental difference between the two mentalities.

The difficulty for those who do not see the difference lays in the erroneous thought that NFP is a method to avoid having children and enjoy only one aspect of the act rejecting the reproductive one. Couples that for serious reasons can not have any more children, or may postpone the birth of a child, might be engaged in the type of relations that the Church allow as licit: having sexual relations when nature makes impossible reproduction, as occurs in the case of menopause, natural sterility etc…

In the same way the Church allows as licit to have sexual relations when we know that reproduction can not take place and we limit ourselves to those times.

ABC it is not the same. It is a different act: ABC actively renders the sexual act sterile; it is not the same kind of act as the one done in infertile times.

Limiting sexual relations to periods of time that we KNOW infertile does not act against the nature of the act.

I think the confusion comes when the Church condemns as a sinful the use of NFP when no serious reason alleged. In this case the act is open to life and by itself not sinful; the sin is to make the decision of avoiding reproduction without having a serious reason. Those are two different things that easily get confused.

Avoiding reproduction, therefore, is allowed only when serious reasons are present and there is not an active mean used before, during or after the act thought to directly avoid conception.

Regards,

Jose

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Shiann:

Have you ever given a gift because you wanted to impress someone, or thought you should? You are at the store trying to find something that will work as a gift, and you tie it up in a pretty bow…

Then there’s the day you are walking down the street and you find that PERFECT thing for a SPECIAL person and though there is no occassion you get it and give it to them with all the good thoughts and love for that person in your heart.

You’ve given a gift to each person. They both recieved your gift, and are please at your thoughtfullness and your generosity.

But one was given for YOU so YOU feel better inside or so YOU nullify some debt or obligation to them.

The other was given for THEM without thought of self. You gave it because you know THEY would like it/use it.

God knows when sex is for YOU or for YOUR SPOUSE.

:clapping:



Malia

 

[john_ennis]

josea:

ABC it is not the same. It is a different act: ABC actively renders the sexual act sterile; it is not the same kind of act as the one done in infertile times.

…which (the act done in infertile times) leaves it totally up to God as to whether that specific act results in pregnancy. If it’s sterile, it’s only because He made it so, in that instance.

“ABC renders the sexual act sterile”; a nice way of stating the real difference, Jose.

peace.
John

 

[PLAL]

josea:

Hi everybody,

In the last year I have been thinking a lot about the difference between NFP and ABC.

This is what I saw: There is a REAL and fundamental difference between the two mentalities.

The difficulty for those who do not see the difference lays in the erroneous thought that NFP is a method to avoid having children and enjoy only one aspect of the act rejecting the reproductive one. Couples that for serious reasons can not have any more children, or may postpone the birth of a child, might be engaged in the type of relations that the Church allow as licit: having sexual relations when nature makes impossible reproduction, as occurs in the case of menopause, natural sterility etc…

In the same way the Church allows as licit to have sexual relations when we know that reproduction can not take place and we limit ourselves to those times.

ABC it is not the same. It is a different act: ABC actively renders the sexual act sterile; it is not the same kind of act as the one done in infertile times.

Limiting sexual relations to periods of time that we KNOW infertile does not act against the nature of the act.

I think the confusion comes when the Church condemns as a sinful the use of NFP when no serious reason alleged. In this case the act is open to life and by itself not sinful; the sin is to make the decision of avoiding reproduction without having a serious reason. Those are two different things that easily get confused.

Avoiding reproduction, therefore, is allowed only when serious reasons are present and there is not an active mean used before, during or after the act thought to directly avoid conception.

Regards,

Jose

Great Post Jose!! We need to post this thread on other internet sites so any Catholics wrongly using birth control & Religions who support birth control can learn from it. This would be a supplementary source to Primary Sources such as Humanae Vitae & Christopher West’s “Theology of the Body”.

 

[manualman]

Regular condom use encourages MORE condom use. The act has NO inherent mechanism to encourage the couple to reconsider their reasons for not having more children. Quite the opposite, it encourages selfish sex which makes them LESS open to children.

NFP has a built-in mechanism that forces the couple to regularly reconsider their reasons for postponing more children. If you are a man and have practiced NFP, you KNOW what I’m talkin’ about!

A marriage opposed to children is a dying thing. Condom sex encourages you to be more closed. NFP pushes you back to openness.

 

[mumto5]

I almost died having my last baby. If I have another one there is a 20-25% chance of the same thing happening again. My husband is not Catholic and doesn’t agree with Church teaching on this matter. His first words, when I regained consciousness, was that a vasectomy was no longer negotiable. OK, so he wouldn’t have done it if I had been dead set against it but I just let him do it for the sake of my children. My five children need me. My husband needs me. I would have loved at least one more child but in some instances, such as this one, it seemed to be the less selfish thing to not have any more for the sake of those in my family, most particularly my children. Time and time again I am reminded why my children benefit from having a mother. NFP is not acceptable to my husband. We conceived the last baby using NFP, and using it well. I’m so glad we have her but the priests and parish won’t be there to raise my children and support my husband should I die having another. They won’t pay for my husband’s lost earnings, do the housework when my husband is trying to care for a newborn and five other children. They won’t cook the meals. Sometimes, we do what we have to do. I have prayed and feel at peace about this.

 

[mumto5]

BTW - I consider I am open to life even though my husband has had a vasectomy. If any child was conceived due to failure of the vasectomy he or she would be given life and loved. I see a big difference between preventing a life as opposed to ending one already begun.

 

[NiceGuyPose]

mumto5:

BTW - I consider I am open to life even though my husband has had a vasectomy. If any child was conceived due to failure of the vasectomy he or she would be given life and loved. I see a big difference between preventing a life as opposed to ending one already begun.

I agree to an extent… I think it is much worse to end a life but preventing the natural will of God is not very good. It comes down to faith… Do I trust him. If we think with a faith attitude he will never give us more than we can handle we just have to have to trust in that. In a way the two can be very similar and destructive.

 

[mumto5]

I know what you mean but I had faith last time. I just can’t imagine that God would give me these children and not want me to be there for them. I’m hoping that adopting or fostering may come our way in future, who knows. Right now my youngest is still a baby so I have my hands full. I just don’t see it as black and white. In itself I don’t have a fear of death. I just want to be there for my children. Believe me, this decision was not made because I don’t want another baby. It was made for the least self reasons. I’d probably keep having babies if it were left to me. Maybe our Lord is trying to tell me something?