How is NFP morally different to condoms?

[john_ennis]

mercygate:

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.

We agree. Others in this conversation have been asserting that measures to prevent pregnancy (e.g., NFP), are wrong because they defeat the primary purpose of marriage. They make no allowance for any reason for preventing pregnancy. If they’re consistent, they ought to have a problem with what this couple did.

I’m trying to understand their reasoning.

Peace.
John

 

[john_ennis]

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

I don’t think anyone would say it’s never wrong to abstain. The marital act is good. Abstaining can be done for bad reasons (like to punish one’s spouse), or with bad effect (it can make the marriage suffer).
But do you say that this biblical passage means no reason can justify abstaining? Let’s take an extreme example: what about when a spouse is suffering from a severe chronic illness which makes sex agonizing or even dangerous? What if he/she is in a coma?
Since such examples show that the biblical passage you cite is not to be applied absolutely, it’s okay to consider whether the couple whom Mercygate described are doing the right thing.

Peace.
John

 

[mercygate]

john ennis:

We agree. Others in this conversation have been asserting that measures to prevent pregnancy (e.g., NFP), are wrong because they defeat the primary purpose of marriage. They make no allowance for any reason for preventing pregnancy. If they’re consistent, they ought to have a problem with what this couple did.

I’m trying to understand their reasoning.

Peace.
John

There *are *allowable reasons for avoiding pregnancy (not the same thing as preventing it; you’re still in a contraceptive mentality). Pregnancy as a death threat is a good medical reason. This couple had two children and had five pregnancies. The two surviving children were carried through extremely difficult pregnancies, which involved nearly 6 months of bed rest for the mother. The three unsuccessful pregnances in nearly cost the mother her life.

The primary purpose of marriage had been amply discharged by their having all the children that could resonably be expected to issue from this relationship. While every pregnancy entails some risk, it is not the purpose of marriage to place people at extraordinary risk for their lives.

Do you not see the difference between avoiding pregnancy because you have only a 3 bedroom house and don’t want the kids to share a room and avoiding pregnancy after it has been learned that pregnancy has a high likelihood of killing you?

I’m going with Humanae vitae, which allows for compelling medical circumstances. THAT is exactly what NFP would be used for if used in the spirit of HV. As I mentioned earlier, NFP was not available at the time, and this couple elected continence.

 

[mercygate]

josephdavid:

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

Hmmm. I have heard it argued that some Bible-only denominations have permitted contraception because it is not specifically addressed in the Bible.

But maybe those denominations do not have the first chapter of Romans in their Bible. :ehh: Romans 1 does not specifically mention contraception, but does refer to “unnatural sexual acts” – which contraception certainly is.