How is NFP morally different to condoms?

[stanley123]

Kay Cee:

Besides, someone using NFP is not “making every effort to defeat the natural primary purpose of marriage.” Making every effort would include contraception.

I think that you are more accurate on this: every may not be the correct word to use in this context. . On reflection of what you have kindly written, I would edit my statement which was not accurate to read as follows:
Someone using NFP to prevent children is making a serious effort to defeat the natural primary purpose of marriage which is the procreation of children. This serious effort includes the use of artificial, man made instruments, such as thermometers, chemical tests, charts, and complicated note taking.

 

[john_ennis]

stanley123:

I think that you are more accurate on this: every may not be the correct word to use in this context. . On reflection of what you have kindly written, I would edit my statement which was not accurate to read as follows:
Someone using NFP to prevent children is making a serious effort to defeat the natural primary purpose of marriage which is the procreation of children. This serious effort includes the use of artificial, man made instruments, such as thermometers, chemical tests, charts, and complicated note taking.

Stanley, you must acknowledge something which is relevant: those who practice NFP refuse to engage in the sex act except when the biology which God created makes a pregnancy unlikely.

Those using condoms and other contraceptives SEEK to engage in the sex act at times when the God-created biology is unacceptable to them, and must be altered.

Your primary focus has been that marriage’s “primary purpose” is thwarted whenever a pregnancy is deliberately avoided, and this is wrong. You MUST acknowledge then, that ANYTIME a couple decides to stop having children, whether by abstinance, ABC, NFP, or whatever, they are violating the “primary purpose” of marriage, the way you have defined it.

Don’t you see anything commendable in refusing to engage in the sex act, rather than altering God’s biology in order to so engage?

Peace.
John

 

[stanley123]

john ennis:

Your primary focus has been that marriage’s “primary purpose” is thwarted whenever a pregnancy is deliberately avoided, and this is wrong. You MUST acknowledge then, that ANYTIME a couple decides to stop having children, whether by abstinance, ABC, NFP, or whatever, they are violating the “primary purpose” of marriage, the way you have defined it.

This is not accurate in my opinion. What is being done with the use of NFP is a certain amount of artificial scheming and the artificial employment of man made instruments which enable the couple to enjoy marital relations at certain times while at the same time to defeat the natural primary purpose of marriage which is the procreation of children.
According to Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubi:
“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Is NFP, when used to prevent children, any different in **purpose **than ABC ?

 

[Jocelyn]

Stanley,
I am so glad I found someone who understands me but can explain it better.

Surely, the church has not always taught NFP. Early church people did not understand about ovulation, I am sure.

When did the church start teaching NFP? I have asked this question several times and no one wants to answer me.

 

[mercygate]

stanley123:

This is not accurate in my opinion. What is being done with the use of NFP is a certain amount of artificial scheming and the artificial employment of man made instruments which enable the couple to enjoy marital relations at certain times while at the same time to defeat the natural primary purpose of marriage which is the procreation of children.
According to Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubi:
“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Is NFP, when used to prevent children, any different in **purpose **than ABC ?

Now you’re cooking, Stanley. Used with a raw contraceptive intent, that is, when there is no compelling reason to avoid pregnancy, NFP can be sinful.

But while you’re touting the basic “evil” of NFP because it can be used incorrectly, I would tout the virtue of it to encourage couples to live up to their covenant vows.

You got a lot of kids, Stanlely? Good for you. Good for your wife. Good for those children. But not everyone has the same gifts and strengths. People say the Catholic Church spends too much time worrying about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. This is one place where the Church is reticent to invade. And aren’t we glad about that!

 

[mercygate]

Jocelyn:

Stanley,
I am so glad I found someone who understands me but can explain it better.

Surely, the church has not always taught NFP. Early church people did not understand about ovulation, I am sure.

When did the church start teaching NFP? I have asked this question several times and no one wants to answer me.

Look around these forums for a recent thread asking this question. (I can’t find it). Someone cited a document published in 1951 but mentioned suggested references to the nineteenth century. About 40 years ago, people used the rhythm method – based strictly on the calendar. It has only been since then that the more refined methods of NFP have appeared. Certainly, in Humanae vitae Paul VI encourages medical science to come up with ways for couples to licitly space births when circumstances warrant. So, I’m thinkin’ the fine-tuning of NFP may have occurred later than that.

In the '70s, I participated in a research trial (at a secular medical school), which required spitting up what seemed like gallons of saliva every morning and taking it to a lab for analysis. The stated purpose of that study was to find a way for Catholics to space births without using artificial birth control.

 

[stanley123]

mercygate:

Now you’re cooking, Stanley. Used with a raw contraceptive intent, that is, when there is no compelling reason to avoid pregnancy, NFP can be sinful.

Thank you.

 

[stanley123]

mercygate:

. In the '70s, I participated in a research trial (at a secular medical school), which required spitting up what seemed like gallons of saliva every morning and taking it to a lab for analysis. The stated purpose of that study was to find a way for Catholics to space births without using artificial birth control.

It is perfectly natural to spit up gallons of saliva every morning and to have it artificially analysed at a lab ? Why is not this the use of artificial man made tools designed for the purpose of defeating the natural primary purpose of marriage ?

 

[john_ennis]

stanley123:

This is not accurate in my opinion. What is being done with the use of NFP is a certain amount of artificial scheming and the artificial employment of man made instruments which enable the couple to enjoy marital relations at certain times while at the same time to defeat the natural primary purpose of marriage which is the procreation of children.
According to Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubi:
“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Is NFP, when used to prevent children, any different in **purpose **than ABC ?

That is a helpful question; the answer is “yes.” The difference is that ABC has the purpose of enabling one to engage in the act by deforming God’s creation–our bodies–when our biology could otherwise bring about a pregnancy. NFP has the purpose of avoiding such desecration.

Both may have the purpose of avoiding pregnancy–but that is not where ABC is intrinsically sinful.

But I think that last point, you would not accept; in your opinion, is it EVER proper to avoid trying to have children, by any means? Is a couple with seven children obliged to continue attempting to have children–I mean, not only avoid NFP/ABC, etc, but also actively seek to conceive? If not, wouldn’t they be defeating the primary purpose of marriage, as you see it?

Peace.
John

 

[john_ennis]

An additional question for Stanley, or other critics of NFP due to its “artificial” nature.

Hypothetically, one could certainly have a sexual relationship with one’s spouse, and avoid a pregnancy without ABC or NFP. If one were to engage in relations only during the couple/few days which the women is virtually certain to be infertile (this is certainly feasible with women who are relatively regular), the “artificial” nature of the method has been removed.

Is it now any more acceptable, in your eyes?

Peace.
John

 

[mercygate]

stanley123:

It is perfectly natural to spit up gallons of saliva every morning and to have it artificially analysed at a lab ? Why is not this the use of artificial man made tools designed for the purpose of defeating the natural primary purpose of marriage ?

Stanley, it is not contrary to nature to attempt to understand human physiology. Thermometers and charting do nothing to interfere with or to CHANGE the physiology. Condoms interfere with the natural human act. The pill changes the physiology.

Marriage has both primary and secondary purposes. Both are important. Different people have different talents, strengths, gifts and resources. Those who must avoid a pregnancy for a good reason now have access to the knowledge of how that can be done while still enjoying the secondary purpose and privilege of marriage.

Any couple with a grave reason to avoid pregnancy who wish not to use NFP is perfectly free to abstain entirely from sexual relations.

The English title of Humanae vitae is: On the Regulation of Birth. Clearly, there is more to sacramental covenant marriage and child rearing than producing a child every single time the fertility cycle sets us up for the process. There is nothing intrinsically evil about avoiding intercourse when serious considerations require spacing births. I know a couple for whom a 5th pregnancy (she had lost 3 of her five babies before 6 months of pregnancy) would have been life-threatening. At around age 35 this couple (still happily marired, and now approaching 70) ceased to have sexual relations altogether in order to preserve the woman’s life. Today, they could have used NFP to support the secondary purpose of marriage.

Your hammering on this point leads me to ask whether you advocate complete providentialism for everyone, and whether this has enhanced your own marriage (assuming you are married with [several] children).

 

[john_ennis]

mercygate:

I know a couple for whom a 5th pregnancy (she had lost 3 of her five babies before 6 months of pregnancy) would have been life-threatening. At around age 35 this couple (still happily marired, and now approaching 70) ceased to have sexual relations altogether in order to preserve the woman’s life. Today, they could have used NFP to support the secondary purpose of marriage.

The criticism of NFP we’ve been reading on this thread (re its thwarting of the primary purpose of marriage), would condemn what this couple did as well. Clearly (this way of thinking would insist), these two people were “defeating the primary purpose of marriage.”

What say you, all those who disapprove of NFP for that particular reason?

Peace.
John

 

[Kay_Cee]

stanley123:

According to Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubi:
“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Since a woman is *naturally *infertile during certain times of her cycle, intercourse during that time cannot frustrate the *natural *power and purpose of sex. (What will happen naturally during that time is that a pregnancy will not result.) The fact that unnatural things like thermometers, pencils, and charts are used does nothing to alter her natural biology as God created it.

Is NFP, when used to prevent children, any different in purposethan ABC ?

You keep harping on the purpose, the end result. Just because the *end *is the same, whether using NFP or ABC, is not the point. The *means *are different.

NFP works within God’s design of human nature.
ABC seeks to alter God’s design of human nature.

One of the reasons contraception is evil is because it tells God He designed us wrong, and we are going to fix His mistake. It says we puny humans know better than He does, and we will re-design ourselves according to the image we desire, not the image He desired for us.

 

[stanley123]

Kay Cee:

You keep harping on the purpose, the end result. Just because the *end *is the same, whether using NFP or ABC, is not the point. The *means *are different. .

Do the means justify the end? In other words, is one permitted to use a good means to attain a bad end?

 

[mercygate]

john ennis:

The criticism of NFP we’ve been reading on this thread (re its thwarting of the primary purpose of marriage), would condemn what this couple did as well. Clearly (this way of thinking would insist), these two people were “defeating the primary purpose of marriage.”

What say you, all those who disapprove of NFP for that particular reason?

Peace.
John

Since their ability to have children without undue risk of maternal (and fetal) life was compromised, as evidenced by 3 catastrophic miscarriages, I do not see how it would be considered “defeating the primary purpose of marriage” to insure that she could continue mothering the surviving children. We are not required to knowingly risk a mother’s life in a circumstance like this one.

 

[mercygate]

stanley123:

Do the means justify the end? In other words, is one permitted to use a good means to attain a bad end?

No, one is not permitted to use a good means to attain a bad end. That is clear. But you seem to be asserting that ALL regulation of birth ipso facto thwarts the primary purpose of marriage. I do not believe a strong case can be made for that position. SOME people may be called to radical providentialism; most are not.

 

[josephdavid]

Again one must only read scriptures so see condoms are wrong.

 

[Jocelyn]

Mercygate,
I am replying to what you wrote about the couple who abstained for years because the wife had health problems.

Doesn’t the bible state that we should do quite the opposite. The bible states in 1 Corinthians 5 “Do not deprive eachother, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self control.”

People on this site always say there is nothing wrong to abstain, but doesn’t the bible state quite the contrary.

I

 

[Kay_Cee]

stanley123:

Do the means justify the end? In other words, is one permitted to use a good means to attain a bad end?

Are you assuming the end is bad?

 

[mercygate]

Jocelyn:

Mercygate,
I am replying to what you wrote about the couple who abstained for years because the wife had health problems.

Doesn’t the bible state that we should do quite the opposite. The bible states in 1 Corinthians 5 “Do not deprive eachother, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self control.”

People on this site always say there is nothing wrong to abstain, but doesn’t the bible state quite the contrary.

I

This couple had an exceptional situation (though not as uncommon as we probably think). Let me turn your question around.

Does the Bible tell us that we should deliberately commit an act that we KNOW could directly lead to taking a life – particularly the life of a mother with young children? Does I Corinthians 5 put limits on “mutual consent for a time?” This couple “mutually consented for a time” and they certainly did spend a lot of time in prayer. I do not know whether they resumed relations when the years of childbearing had passed. But if they did, then the “time” would have concluded. If they did not, can we not assume that they were not among those whom Paul describes as lacking self control and that their continence was enabled by the grace of God?

Does Paul (a celibate who counseled celibacy, even among married people, when he advises those who have wives to live “as though they had none,” ) claim that those who may be required to carry an extraordinary burden will not receive the grace to bear it? Does he not say that God will not test us beyond our powers?