Is contraception a sin

[Vonsalza]

The ultimate objective and aim is to be open to God’s will. Even those using NFP to avoid pregnancy still recognize that sex leads to children, and that no matter how you might try to avoid it, having sex may resulting in you having another kid.

While it may be certain that I don’t understand it as well as you (), everyone - even primitive, tribal societies - recognizes that sex leads to children whether contraception is used or not. One of my very own sisters became pregnant with a child while on an oral bc regimen.

Every contraceptive method has published failure rates, which communicates loud-and-clear (particularly to women) that pregnancy is an ever-present potential outcome of sexual activity.

NFP and contraceptives are identical in intent. Identical.
The idea is to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex while minimizing the procreative aspect of sex. And as with contraception, the occurrence of pregnancy for the vast, vast majority of NFP practitioners constitutes a “failure” of the intent behind its employment. Like it or not.

Coitus interuptus isn’t natural.

It’s certainly free of artifice. For most, that is potentially synonymous with “natural”. Of course, you’re free to your own opinions.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

ProdglArchitect:

The ultimate objective and aim is to be open to God’s will. Even those using NFP to avoid pregnancy still recognize that sex leads to children, and that no matter how you might try to avoid it, having sex may resulting in you having another kid.

While it may be certain that I don’t understand it as well as you (), everyone - even primitive, tribal societies - recognizes that sex leads to children whether contraception is used or not. One of my very own sisters became pregnant with a child while on an oral bc regimen.

Every contraceptive method has published failure rates, which communicates loud-and-clear (particularly to women) that pregnancy is an ever-present potential outcome of sexual activity.

NFP and contraceptives are identical in intent. Identical.
The idea is to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex while minimizing the procreative aspect of sex. And as with contraception, the occurrence of pregnancy for the vast, vast majority of NFP practitioners constitutes a “failure” of the intent behind its employment. Like it or not.

I’m sorry, but I just cannot agree with this. Intent and methodology are both important and, while many people do use NFP with contraceptive intent, the means by which that intent are enacted are important. NFP still allows the sexual act to have its intended end, contraceptives do not. It is also important to remember that NFP undertaken only with the intent to permanently prevent pregnancy is just as wrong in the Church’s eyes as using contraceptives. I don’t know if that’s been stated yet or not, but it’s an important fact to understand.

As for your comment about women knowing sex is a potential outcome, I’m also going to have to disagree with you. I know multiple women who simply could not believe that they got pregnant while on contraceptive. They thought it was literally impossible.

It’s certainly free of artifice. For most, that is potentially synonymous with “natural”. Of course, you’re free to your own opinions.

That type of “natural” as in, coming from nature, is not what the Church means when it is discussing what is natural. If you want to discuss this, you need to understand what “natural” means in the Church’s lexicon.

When the Church speaks of “natural,” we are focusing on what an act / object is ordered towards. Onanism is contra-natural because it acts against what sex is ordered towards; namely the completion of the sexual act within the vagina, which is by its very form open to conception. Any intentionally placed physical or chemical barriers frustrate the natural ends of the sexual act by rendering the womb incapable of bearing fruit. (Any yes, I know there are failure rates, but those do not excuse the very real intent and methodology employed by the various contraceptive implements.)

 

[Vonsalza]

NFP still allows the sexual act to have its intended end, contraceptives do not.

My nephew “Hank” might have a word with you on this - he being a baby conceived while my sister was taking oral contraceptives. And she’s a medical professional - she probably took them exactly as prescribed.

It is also important to remember that NFP undertaken only with the intent to permanently prevent pregnancy is just as wrong in the Church’s eyes as using contraceptives.

Quite right.

If you want to discuss this, you need to understand what “natural” means in the Church’s lexicon.

Quite the difficulty for non-Catholics, I’m sure you could see.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

ProdglArchitect:

NFP still allows the sexual act to have its intended end, contraceptives do not.

My nephew “Hank” might have a word with you on this - he being a baby conceived while my sister was taking oral contraceptives. And she’s a medical professional - she probably took them exactly as prescribed.

I already address the fact of some failure rates for contraceptives; are you even reading my whole posts? The fact that a failure rate exists does not change the means by which contraceptive work, nor does that change their intended effect, which is to be able to enjoy the sexual act without recognizing and being open to the consequences of that act. NFP can be used in this way (though to a lesser extent due to the possibility for conception not being frustrated by external factors), and doing so is just as wrong as using contraceptives. What NFP cannot do, is drastically alter the chemical composition of the womb, making it nearly impossible for sperm to reach the egg, or for the egg to implant if conception occurs.

Contraceptives are both unnatural in the sense that they contradict what the sexual act is ordered towards, and that they change the natural composition of the body to prevent conception. Both things are bad.

Quite the difficulty for non-Catholics, I’m sure you could see.

The fact that it’s difficult doesn’t mean that it should ignored, nor does it in any way impact the correctness of Church teaching.

I need to drop out of this discussion now. I have a lot of work to accomplish today and these sorts of debates tend to take up more of my focus than I care to admit. Have a good one!

 

[Vonsalza]

I already address the fact of some failure rate for contraceptives; are you even reading my whole posts?

Yes. I’m just pointing out indubitable evidence that your claim of “NFP still allows the sexual act to have its intended end, contraceptives do not” is factually, demonstrably wrong.

Again - factually, demonstrably wrong.

The fact that it’s difficult doesn’t mean that it should ignored, nor does it in any way impact the correctness of Church teaching.

Sure. I can see that. But it would be unreasonable to expect someone outside the Catholic Church to submit to the Catholic dictionary on important terms, right?

Have a good one!

Hey, you too! Thanks for the chat.

 

[laylow]

Onan is an interesting example. We know he slept with his late-brother’s wife and when the critical moment came (no pun intended), Onan “cast his seed upon the ground”. God didn’t like it and killed Onan.

There can be three sins here;

1. Onan died because he cast his semen upon the ground.
2. Onan died because he refused to fulfill his familial duty of giving his brother’s estate an heir.
3. Onan died because he didn’t inseminate his sister-in-law.

Never heard the third one until I started studying Catholic theology in contemplation of becoming a Roman Catholic.

I always thought the ‘sin’ was that Onan disobeyed God?

 

[goout]

goout:

NFP is not contraception, nor is it contraceptive in intent. You say that “in NFP sex is ceased”, and that is not correct. NFP is not an act to be ceased, it is a non-action, for lack of a better word.

Contraception, as the word goes, is something that impedes (contra-) the conception of a child (-ceptive).

Since we are talking about morality, the first thing to consider, and the thing that must be maintained, is that morality evaluates human acts.
Contraception is not “something”, it is an act. Human beings choose acts. ( and yes, we can get into extraneous discussions about true freedom and all that…)

If your paradigm were true, a couple is guilty of constant sin. Think about it.

God gives human beings reason, and God also wants us to be prudent and wise.
We are pro-creators, or co-operators with God in fertility. We are not God, and on the other hand we are not slaves to the moral law nor are we slaves to nature, in the perverse way you are suggesting.

We are pro-creators.

 

[MiserereMei25]

Please get a copy of Humana Vitae.

 

[Vonsalza]

Since we are talking about morality, the first thing to consider, and the thing that must be maintained, is that morality evaluates human acts.

I can dance to that if you add some caveat that factors in intent.

With that said, a couple that periodically exercises chastity for its own sake with no other regards (like, say to fertility)

-is not the same as-

a couple that only exercises chastity during certain periods when the wife is more likely to get pregnant.

---

Abstaining from sex specifically because pregnancy might be more likely at a given time absolutely constitutes an act. It’s an act just like any other deliberate, conscious refusal constitutes an act.

 

[phil19034]

Well, you do not have authority over your sisters. Telling them might not be the best way.

Maybe buy a copy of:
https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Naturel-What-Good-Marriage/dp/1931018588

And then say “I read this good book!” and loan it to them.

FYI - Patrick Coffin released an updated version of this book, re-titled as The Contraception Deception: Catholic Teaching on Birth Control

God bless

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1947792806/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0

 

[goout]

goout:

Since we are talking about morality, the first thing to consider, and the thing that must be maintained, is that morality evaluates human acts.

I can dance to that if you add some caveat that factors in intent.

With that said, a couple that periodically exercises chastity for its own sake with no other regards (like, say to fertility)

Chastity is: the proper integration of sexuality within the context of the whole person. All persons are called to chastity. I assume you meant continence, or abstinence?

-is not the same as-

a couple that only exercises chastity during certain periods when the wife is more likely to get pregnant.

---

Abstaining from sex specifically because pregnancy might be more likely at a given time absolutely constitutes an act. It’s an act just like any other deliberate, conscious refusal constitutes an act.

Yes ok, but we are talking about the act of contraception. And contraception is specifically a sex act that is disordered. Abstinence is not a sex act.

Your point is that a couple can avoid fertility against the purpose of marriage, and that is certainly possible and likely does happen. NFP is not ordered to the abuse of sexuality. NFP promotes the proper integration of sexuality (or "chastity) within a marriage, and employs the couple’s prudent self mastery.

You should think about the true implications of what you are saying. I’m a married man and neither of us can procreate. In your paradigm, we are sinning when we have sex. In your paradigm a couple should only have sex when they conceive? What if they intend to conceive but don’t? Were they not doing it right? Is a couple obligated to copulate non stop for the rest of their lives, or obligated to conceive child after child?
If you think through what you are saying, it’s a bit silly.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes ok, but we are talking about the act of contraception. And contraception is specifically a sex act that is disordered. Abstinence is not a sex act.

Look, planning your sexual schedule around female fertility (so as to avoid it) is a contraceptive method to avoiding children.

We can’t change the definition of “contraception” to suit your argument.

 

[goout]

goout:

Yes ok, but we are talking about the act of contraception. And contraception is specifically a sex act that is disordered. Abstinence is not a sex act.

Look, planning your sexual schedule around female fertility (so as to avoid it) is a contraceptive method to avoiding children.

so let me get this straight: you believe that couples who practice NFP do not have children, and that the purpose of NFP is to avoid pregnancy. Correct? (not)

 

[Vonsalza]

I believe that the vast vast vast majority of couples practicing NFP do so in an effort to avoid having children. Which makes it contraceptive according to the definition of the word.

 

[goout]

goout:

Yes ok, but we are talking about the act of contraception. And contraception is specifically a sex act that is disordered. Abstinence is not a sex act.

We can’t change the definition of “contraception” to suit your argument.

You have to have some definition of contraception, and since we are talking about the issue in a Catholic context, shouldn’t we use the commonly accepted definition used in Catholic moral theology?
Your charge that I’m changing the definition doesn’t work.

 

[Elf01]

We can’t change the definition of “contraception” to suit your argument.

I agree that in normal, secular usage NFP is contraception. However the Catholic Church has a different definition:

Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

Birth Control | Catholic Answers Tract

If the conjugal act does not occur there is no contraception. However I suspect you already knew this.

 

[goout]

I believe that the vast vast vast majority of couples practicing NFP do so in an effort to avoid having children. Which makes it contraceptive according to the definition of the word.

Think about what you just said.
A couple wishes to thwart the fertility of their marriage, and so they go through the time and effort of NFP to do it. Instead of wearing a condom etc…
Seriously?

I know a lot of people who practice NFP, and I know of absolutely no one who practices it to thwart God’s purposes for their marriage. People who are not well intentioned will simply contracept, not do NFP.

And “contraception” is not the same thing as avoiding having children, unless you want to have your own personal definition of the word. Contraception is a sex act which is disordered to fertility.

 

[Vonsalza]

I use a definition for contraception that would be accepted in a health class at any university-

Any object or practice intended to frustrate conception.

This is almost the Oxford definition verbatim.

 

[goout]

I use a definition for contraception that would be accepted in a health class at any university-

Any object or practice intended to frustrate conception.

This is almost the Oxford definition verbatim.

That’s nice but we are on a Catholic moral theology forum.

 

[Vonsalza]

You will be very successful ministering to those who already agree with you, then.