Husband and I not having sex because we don't want children.

[bobcrawford]

You do realize that condoms aren’t that effective, right?

If it doesn’t matter whether it’s NFP or condoms then why do so many object to NFP and so many use birth control instead?

The PP was right about your logic not applying to the scenarios. Contraception is sinful and NFP isn’t. One is giving yourself fully to your spouse as Christ did to the Church and you are commanded to do as a husband. The other is blocking the very life giving part of yourself and withholding which is nearly the opposite of what Jesus did in giving himself up for the Church.

Condoms are 100% effective unless they break.

The reason people object to NFP is that is the all about timing right? So when the mood strikes timing may not be on your side. With something like a condom, you don’t have to be concerned.

Since it is the intent that results in a sin, if a condom is sinful as to prevent pregnancy, then so to is NFP - because in both cases, the intent is to prevent pregnancy - just the method is different.

I don’t see how either one is different as to giving yourself fully to your spouse.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Condoms are 100% effective unless they break.

The reason people object to NFP is that is the all about timing right? So when the mood strikes timing may not be on your side. With something like a condom, you don’t have to be concerned.

Since it is the intent that results in a sin, if a condom is sinful as to prevent pregnancy, then so to is NFP - because in both cases, the intent is to prevent pregnancy - just the method is different.

I don’t see how either one is different as to giving yourself fully to your spouse.

Even secular doctors don’t claim 100% effectiveness for condoms. I think they are considered 98%

 

[Memaw]

No , it’s not !! What with 2 people who can’t have kids ??
OK , they could legally adopt a child (if approved) ;
but what if don’t wanna have one ??

(Look , i’m not catholic anymore)

Like I said, it has to be OPEN to having children, the rest is up to God. If one or even both are unable to bear children thats still up to God but they must be OPEN to the possibility.
God Bless, Memaw

 

[bobcrawford]

If I intend to stick my foot out and trip someone, that is a sinful intent. If I unknowingly trip someone with my foot, I didn’t have bad intent, not sinful.

You are way off. I already explained same ends and different means to get there. The ends in this situation is to not get pregnant. Use of NFP vs birth control are different means to get there. Same as death as ends: murder or natural causes is means.

NFP is VERY effective. more so than ANY artificial birth control, which do not work. Birth control gets credit for working even when it doesn’t (such as when women are infertile), and when its abortive.

a few anecdotal stories of people that got pregnant while using NFP does not make statistics. Most of the time, you’ll even see on here, when people say we "kind of " used NFP and got pregnant. that’s not using NFP.

You are knowingly trying to prevent pregnancy. It is not an accident as it accidentally tripping someone. The outcome is the same of course, someone falls, but the intent is different.

Same with death. Murder is an intent to kill someone. Natural death is not another’s intention. Yes, the result is the same - death - but there bear no relationship to each other except the outcome.

As for effectiveness of NFP, typical failure rate is around 25%. That means 1 in 4 women will get pregnant using NFP. I’ve never read of condoms failing at that rate, if so, there would be a massive government recall.

 

[bobcrawford]

Even secular doctors don’t claim 100% effectiveness for condoms. I think they are considered 98%

Nothing is 100% except maybe sterilization. However with NFP even steadfastly following the method means only 90% effective. Typical is only about 75% effective. So condoms at 98% are pretty good in comparison.

 

[Memaw]

Originally Posted by dluna
Yes, we would be happily having sex if it weren’t about the possibility of having children. But it is hard to even want to get our paws around each other now. We feel “holy” about our bodies now and the act of sex seems so foreign.

That reminds me of an old Heresy but I can’t think of the name of it right off hand. You and your husband sincerly need help dealing with all this. God Bless, Memaw.

 

[ajecphotos]

OK I realise what I’m about to say will probably go against catholic teaching. While I respect that you believe God wants all to have fruitful marriages, please please please do not have a child until God has truly changed your heart on how you feel towards children…

Bringing a child into a family who has such contempt towards children, is not truly wanted and was only had out of a sense of “duty” will do immense psychological damage to that child.

I honestly do respect your beliefs as a catholic, I myself love children so will happily have plenty but I do think this belief is taken to the extreme of irresponsibility and idiocy by some catholics. Note I’m not referring to OP per se just advising and generalising. I think of a recent poster who had wanted to divorce and leave her husband since child 3 but still had two more children as it was Gods plan to have as many as necessary. This is stupidity. If you are in a loving relationship and will nurture and care for children, knock yourself out! The OP certainly seems to have the relationship, but please allow God to change your heart before you have kids, do not do it out of a sense of duty!

There are enough unwanted, psychological damaged children in the world, I don’t think we need anymore and it would be irresponsible to do so.

I agree with this post.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You are knowingly trying to prevent pregnancy. It is not an accident as it accidentally tripping someone. The outcome is the same of course, someone falls, but the intent is different.

Same with death. Murder is an intent to kill someone. Natural death is not another’s intention. Yes, the result is the same - death - but there bear no relationship to each other except the outcome.

As for effectiveness of NFP, typical failure rate is around 25%. That means 1 in 4 women will get pregnant using NFP. I’ve never read of condoms failing at that rate, if so, there would be a massive government recall.

I can see your point, but I’m not catholic. I don’t see the difference between NFP and condoms…both have the same intent as you say.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’m not sure why NFP is being brought up. The couple is not planning a family, so they aren’t practicing NFP. They are simply practicing abstinence. If anyone can demonstrate where the Church teaches that total abstinence is sinful, I’m all ears.

 

[bobcrawford]

I’m not sure why NFP is being brought up. The couple is not planning a family, so they aren’t practicing NFP. They are simply practicing abstinence. If anyone can demonstrate where the Church teaches that total abstinence is sinful, I’m all ears.

Seems silly to be married and be abstinence from marital relations. What’s the point of being married? Again, since the intent is to prevent pregnancy through abstinence, just as any method of birth control, then I would say it is sinful.

If they don’t want to have sex or children, seems like both should enter into religious service. Seems more appropriate since our Church now holds that you have to be celibate to be a priest, nun, brother, etc.

Always struggled with the Church’s positions on sex. Just don’t recall Jesus making a big deal of it anywhere in the Bible. Bible says be fruitful and multiply, Church says virginity and celibacy is good. Says sex in marriage good, but lays down law as to what is appropriate. Seems our Church has always had an unhealthy infatuation with sex. Is that what Jesus really intended? If it was, seems He would have mentioned it a lot more in the writings of the Bible.

 

[CarrieSpooner]

Nothing is 100% except maybe sterilization. However with NFP even steadfastly following the method means only 90% effective. Typical is only about 75% effective. So condoms at 98% are pretty good in comparison.

Nope. Condoms are only about 85% effective - m.webmd.com/women/birth-control-condoms?page=5. Sterilization is not 100% effective. There are tons of post-tubal ligation babies and tons of post- vasectomy babies. A hysterectomy for the woman is the only thing that is 100% effective. But no legitimate dr would do one for the purpose of birth control but rather only when there was a serious medical problem warranting one.

Also, you may want to double check your NFP stats. Effectiveness can be much higher than 90%. Everything, including condoms, birth control pills, etc is subject to human error or forgetfulness, etc.

 

[CarrieSpooner]

Seems silly to be married and be abstinence from marital relations. What’s the point of being married? Again, since the intent is to prevent pregnancy through abstinence, just as any method of birth control, then I would say it is sinful.

If they don’t want to have sex or children, seems like both should enter into religious service. Seems more appropriate since our Church now holds that you have to be celibate to be a priest, nun, brother, etc.

Always struggled with the Church’s positions on sex. Just don’t recall Jesus making a big deal of it anywhere in the Bible. Bible says be fruitful and multiply, Church says virginity and celibacy is good. Says sex in marriage good, but lays down law as to what is appropriate. Seems our Church has always had an unhealthy infatuation with sex. Is that what Jesus really intended? If it was, seems He would have mentioned it a lot more in the writings of the Bible.

The Bible begins and ends with a marriage. This marriage imagery is then sprinkled all throughout the pages in between. It’s a frequent theme. Sex is the marriage act. Everything the Church teaches about sex is based in scripture. You might be surprised by what you would find in further study of this matter.

It would be very hard for you to provide a rational argument for the Church being obsessed with sex. There’s simply no evidence of that. It’s ‘the world’ that is obsessed with sex.

Why do you believe what The Bible says? Jesus didn’t say to write a Bible nor did he say to read a Bible. Jesus established a Church and the Church gave you The Bible. How do you even know you can trust The Bible since you don’t trust the Church that gave you the Bible. The Bible was always meant to be understood in and through the Church. Remember the last verse in the Gospel of John? Everything Jesus said and did from his resurrection to his ascension was so much that all the books in the world could not contain it. If you are only going to believe the things that were written down, according to The Bible, you’d be missing out on a ton.

 

[CarrieSpooner]

I can see your point, but I’m not catholic. I don’t see the difference between NFP and condoms…both have the same intent as you say.

Even the intent is not the same. The intent with condoms is to have sex whenever you want and not get pregnant. The intent with NFP is to only have sex during the time God made women infertile. If the intent were the same, people prescribing NFP would be able to have any time.

 

[bobcrawford]

Nope. Condoms are only about 85% effective - m.webmd.com/women/birth-control-condoms?page=5. Sterilization is not 100% effective. There are tons of post-tubal ligation babies and tons of post- vasectomy babies. A hysterectomy for the woman is the only thing that is 100% effective. But no legitimate dr would do one for the purpose of birth control but rather only when there was a serious medical problem warranting one.

Also, you may want to double check your NFP stats. Effectiveness can be much higher than 90%. Everything, including condoms, birth control pills, etc is subject to human error or forgetfulness, etc.

I did check my facts on NFP. Similar results from multiple medical sites as it relates.

BTW, since you are going to use WebMD, then please see their ratings on the effectiveness of NFP - webmd.com/sex/birth-control/rhythm-method it backs up the information I found from other sources that it can be only as effective as 75%.

A latex condom is 100% effective unless it breaks, I find it hard to believe that 15% of condoms break. But they may also be including animal skin condoms which are less effective.

In any case, NFP is just as ineffective as condoms. So the point again is the intent - to prevent pregnancy, so if condoms are sinful, then so is NFP or any other means of birth control.

 

[CarrieSpooner]

I did check my facts on NFP. Similar results from multiple medical sites as it relates.

BTW, since you are going to use WebMD, then please see their ratings on the effectiveness of NFP - webmd.com/sex/birth-control/rhythm-method it backs up the information I found from other sources that it can be only as effective as 75%.

A latex condom is 100% effective unless it breaks, I find it hard to believe that 15% of condoms break. But they may also be including animal skin condoms which are less effective.

In any case, NFP is just as ineffective as condoms. So the point again is the intent - to prevent pregnancy, so if condoms are sinful, then so is NFP or any other means of birth control.

Actually your link to webmd is on the Rhythm Method which is not the same thing as NFP. I agree that the Rhythm Method is only 75% effective and I would not recommend it to anyone.

You are wrong about condoms being 100% effective. I’ve already proven you wrong on that one. I don’t think you are doing yourself any favors by continuing to make that false claim.

The intent is not the same. Please see my previous response.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Even the intent is not the same. The intent with condoms is to have sex whenever you want and not get pregnant. The intent with NFP is to only have sex during the time God made women infertile. If the intent were the same, people prescribing NFP would be able to have any time.

Both condoms and NFP - the intent is to not get pregnant…how is that not the same?

OK I admit the slight difference that condoms allow sex during the fertile period as well. However with NFP…what if both want to have sex during fertile period? Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that you shouldn’t deny each other? So you would be stuck in a no win situation?

With both methods, the problem is not wanting kids, not the want of sex. If kids weren’t an issue neither method would be used

 

[CarrieSpooner]

Both condoms and NFP - the intent is to not get pregnant…how is that not the same?

OK I admit the slight difference that condoms allow sex during the fertile period as well. However with NFP…what if both want to have sex during fertile period? Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that you shouldn’t deny each other? So you would be stuck in a no win situation?

With both methods, the problem is not wanting kids, not the want of sex. If kids weren’t an issue neither method would be used

Actually that’s not the case. With NPF, the intent is to have procreative and unitive sex which is exactly what happens. God didn’t intend for us to get pregnant every time we had sex. He only created a very small window of opportunity for that in each woman’s monthly cycle. Off the top of my head, a somewhat similar analogy would be wearing a rain coat when going on walk. The intent is to keep dry. So on all the days where it is not raining, is the intent still to keep dry? No way! When I take my daily walk, my intent is not to keep dry. My intent is to get exercise, time to contemplate, to get fresh air, etc. I don’t go on walks when it rains but that doesn’t mean my intent for my walks is the same as those who do, to keep dry.

With condoms, the intent is to have sex that is not procreative and to do so at a time even when the woman is fertile. Big difference.

 

[dluna]

I’m not sure how I should approach the NFP and rubber talk.

We don’t even feel sexy to engage in anything vulgar or sexual.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Actually that’s not the case. With NPF, the intent is to have procreative and unitive sex which is exactly what happens. God didn’t intend for us to get pregnant every time we had sex. He only created a very small window of opportunity for that in each woman’s monthly cycle. Off the top of my head, a somewhat similar analogy would be wearing a rain coat when going on walk. The intent is to keep dry. So on all the days where it is not raining, is the intent still to keep dry? No way! When I take my daily walk, my intent is not to keep dry. My intent is to get exercise, time to contemplate, to get fresh air, etc. I don’t go on walks when it rains but that doesn’t mean my intent for my walks is the same as those who do, to keep dry.

With condoms, the intent is to have sex that is not procreative and to do so at a time even when the woman is fertile. Big difference.

Sorry I don’t see it…using that logic, catholics should only have sex during the fertile period anyway because they know they won’t get pregnant other times. Having sex when you know you can’t get pregnant does not equal an intent to be procreative, it’s just sex.

 

[CarrieSpooner]

Sorry I don’t see it…using that logic, catholics should only have sex during the fertile period anyway because they know they won’t get pregnant other times. Having sex when you know you can’t get pregnant does not equal an intent to be procreative, it’s just sex.

Actually, that does equal procreative. It sounds like that’s the missing piece of the puzzle for you. Procreative doesn’t equal procreation. It’s the way it is ordered. It is ordered to procreation. God only made women able to get pregnant during a small window. This is His part. That part is not necessary for sex to be procreative.