is NFP a sin?

[thewanderer]

I’m not sure I see the difference. Aren’t we supposed to always be open to life? How is using a condom to avoid pregnancy and using NFP to avoid pregnancy any different? It’s still avoiding a pregnancy.

The problem is that Catholics often use confusing phrases like “procreative” and “open to life” which lead people to misunderstand Church teaching. If you go read the official Church teachings on this you will not find the phrase “open to life”. You will also discover that the Church never claims that it is inherently wrong to intend to avoid having a child. With contraceptives the Church condemns the means used, not the intention to avoid children, and even officially acknowledges that there are good reasons to avoid and even situations in which it is ones duty to attempt to avoid having children. Please don’t get caught up by the confusing terminology used by so many people. It does not mean what you think it does.

 

[spunjalebi]

What about all the “it’s such and so effective, just like the birth control” stuff? That argument is constantly thrown into NFP users faces.

 

[spunjalebi]

Also what is more confusing is you mention the means, but how does avoiding pregnancy really change the means behind it all? I do apologize for sounding like a broken record, but it just seems like there are more technicalities involved than there should be. Yet we need to know what the teaching really says.

 

[UbiCaritas]

What about all the “it’s such and so effective, just like the birth control” stuff? That argument is constantly thrown into NFP users faces.

How is effectiveness a bad thing, if the couple has a genuinely serious reason to avoid? Let’s take, as an example, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who are both married. Having had three children in fairly close succession, Mrs. Smith has been told quite firmly by her doctor that it would be best if she not get pregnant again for two years because doing so would endanger her life and the life of the baby due to a weak uterus. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have a serious reason, then, to avoid getting pregnant for two years. They hardly would want to use a method which is only 50% likely to keep pregnancy from occurring, right? They want a method that is both morally licit and quite effective–and NFP is that. Its effectiveness doesn’t make it immoral. Use of it long-term for selfish reasons could make it immoral, sure. The decision to use NFP to avoid a pregnancy is one that only the couple can make, perhaps (but not necessarily) with the advice of a trusted priest.

The arguments you mention seem to claim that because the “advertising” for NFP is good, then it is immoral to use NFP. Do I understand this correctly? If so, it’s a complete non sequitur. Yes, NFP is effective. That hardly makes it immoral. It only means that it can be used, like any other information, equally effectively in an immoral manner. An example: I live in Texas. As such, my yard periodically gets infested with fire ants. My husband and I keep fire ant poison in the garage. I know that this is a deadly poison. If I use it to kill fire ants, I’m using this knowledge and this material in a moral manner. If I mix it into my husband’s bowl of chili, I’m using it in an immoral manner. The fact that it’s highly effective in both instances has no bearing whatsoever on the morality of its use.

A lot of Catholic couples use contraception. This is an unfortunate but true fact. Some couples going to NFP classes are worried that it is the “rhythm method,” which is notoriously unreliable. They are worried that they won’t be able to avoid getting pregnant if they have a serious reason to avoid–see Mr. and Mrs. Smith, above. The Church has developed this tool to help people in positions like that of Mr. and Mrs. Smith; surely it’s only fair, when telling a couple that they must be very countercultural in their approach to children and family size, that there is an effective tool they can use if they have a serious reason to avoid getting pregnant at a certain time?

 

[UbiCaritas]

Also what is more confusing is you mention the means, but how does avoiding pregnancy really change the means behind it all? I do apologize for sounding like a broken record, but it just seems like there are more technicalities involved than there should be. Yet we need to know what the teaching really says.

If the couple uses condoms, then the husband’s semen will, in the vast majority of cases that don’t involve the condom breaking, end up inside a latex tube and not inside his wife. If the couple abstains during the fertile period, then they’ve both agreed not to have sex at that time, which both the Church and Scripture make clear is perfectly acceptable. If they use a condom, then it’s a deliberate barrier to conception in the context of the sexual act, which is the key issue here. This teaching dates back to the Old Testament story of Onan, who, so as to avoid getting the woman with whom he was sleeping pregnant, “spilled his seed” (obvious euphemism) before going in to have sex with her. The story does not end pleasantly.

Finally, one of the cardinal virtues is prudence, which is using your knowledge and, for lack of a better term, common sense, in the context of life situations. The Church expects Her children to use prudence in making important decisions. Prudence would dictate, for example, that Mr. and Mrs. Smith should avoid pregnancy for this time because Mrs. Smith’s life and the life of her baby are more important than their natural inclination to make love. Ergo, they should use the knowledge gained through NFP to avoid getting pregnant until it is safe.

 

[spunjalebi]

Yes, it does seem that people like to poke holes in the effectiveness part of NFP as a way to say that it is not a moral decision.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Yes, it does seem that people like to poke holes in the effectiveness part of NFP as a way to say that it is not a moral decision.

At the risk of outing myself as a complete nerd, I have to quote Mr. Spock here: “That is totally illogical.”

Seriously.

By the same token, I shouldn’t keep fire ant bait in my garage because one day I might mix it into my husband’s supper and it would definitely kill him if I did, but I could keep some other poison in the garage so long as its toxicity varied unpredictably with exposure to heat and humidity.

NFP is information, nothing less, nothing more. It tells, among quite a lot of other information, a couple when a woman is and is not fertile. The Church calls on her children to use prudence and Church teaching to decide what to do in a given situation. We are not dogs who blindly obey their masters. We are human beings and have been gifted with a higher intellect which we are expected to use when making important decisions.

Let me give another example. A husband has decided that he would like to quit his job and start writing Catholic novels instead. He is currently employed at a good job which provides for his family, and his wife is a stay-at-home mother. He has sufficient time in the evenings and weekends to write for a couple of hours each day. Mind you, he has little experience in writing fiction, and what little he has written has received strong and reasonable criticism from both editors and people who are otherwise knowledgeable about both fiction and publishing. Quitting his job would probably not improve his writing (since it hasn’t improved over the last several years–frankly, it’s awful) and would put his family into great financial hardship. His wife has no marketable job skills. In this case, the ideal might be that he would quit his job and somehow, however unexpectedly, write the great Catholic novel which will net him and his family millions. Possible, but, based upon objective data, highly unlikely. The prudent decision is clear: he stays in his position and, if he so chooses, spends his free time writing in order to improve his craft. Tell me, is his decision wrong simply because he looked at the data that he had and made a decision to continue taking care of his family? Morally speaking, should he not have shown his work to editors and critics so that he wouldn’t be making a reasonably sure decision in staying at his job? Of course not! He was gathering information in order to make an informed and prudent decision.

NFP is gathering information in order to make an informed and prudent decision.

 

[spunjalebi]

Couldn’t people argue that ABC is also using information and making a prudent decision?

The thing that’s really blocking me is the idea that Catholics are never ever EVER supposed to avoid pregnancy. People have this idea that we’re all supposed to have 20 kids or something and avoiding pregnancy is a bad thing and makes us hypocrites. Every time I try to explain that NFP doesn’t alter the sex act by using a barrier or changing a woman’s body, I’m responded with “avoiding sex is still altering the sex act.” Ugh, it’s so frustrating.

Nerds are welcome, btw.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, it does seem that people like to poke holes in the effectiveness part of NFP as a way to say that it is not a moral decision.

And they are wrong to do so because the fact that NFP to avoid (ie periodic abstinance) is effective has nothing to do with its morality. There are many people who misunderstand Church teaching on this matter and who unfortunately spread their confusion to others. The fact that the Church considers contraception immoral but periodic abstinance moral has nothing to do with the effectiveness or intent behind either.

The Church teaches that there are three aspects of an action which determine its morality.

1. intent/ends
2. means
   3)circumstances

if any one of these aspects is immoral, then the whole action itself will also be immoral. The Church teaches that the intent to avoid children is not, in itself immoral. It teaches that given the right circumstances it can even be a laudable thing. So, the intent to avoid children, given the right circumstances, is moral no matter what means is used (whether contraception, periodic abstinence, or complete abstinence). So far there is absolutely no difference between NFP to avoid and Contraception.

The difference comes in when one looks at the means used. With NFP to avoid (or abstinence) all that happens is one gains knowledge about their fertility and factors this knowledge into their decisions of whether or not to have sex at any point in time. Contraception, on the other hand, changes the nature of sex by altering either ones biology or the mechanics of the act itself, or both. You might disagree with the Church about this, but it is this altering of the act of sex that the Church thinks is immoral. Not having sex with a low chance of getting pregnant, not intending to avoid children, but altering and disordering the act of sex.

Is that any clearer?

 

[thewanderer]

Couldn’t people argue that ABC is also using information and making a prudent decision?

sorry, I took so long writing my last post that I missed this one. Yes. ABC does also do that, however, on top of those things it also alters the act of sex. The thing is that NFP stops with the gathering of information and using it to make a prudential decision of whether or not to have sex. Both of which are totally fine and moral. Contraception, however, adds an immoral element into its operation. This is why the one is permitted but not the other.

The thing that’s really blocking me is the idea that Catholics are never ever EVER supposed to avoid pregnancy. People have this idea that we’re all supposed to have 20 kids or something and avoiding pregnancy is a bad thing and makes us hypocrites. Every time I try to explain that NFP doesn’t alter the sex act by using a barrier or changing a woman’s body, I’m responded with “avoiding sex is still altering the sex act.” Ugh, it’s so frustrating.

Nerds are welcome, btw.

Those people are wrong. They are not representing Church teaching but rather their own personal opinions which happen to contradict official Church teaching.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Couldn’t people argue that ABC is also using information and making a prudent decision?

The thing that’s really blocking me is the idea that Catholics are never ever EVER supposed to avoid pregnancy. People have this idea that we’re all supposed to have 20 kids or something and avoiding pregnancy is a bad thing and makes us hypocrites. Every time I try to explain that NFP doesn’t alter the sex act by using a barrier or changing a woman’s body, I’m responded with “avoiding sex is still altering the sex act.” Ugh, it’s so frustrating.

Nerds are welcome, btw.

They could. They’d be wrong, but they’d could.

Tell me, are Catholics required to have sex every single day, whether or not they’re in the mood? “Honey, I know we’ve had sex every day for the last week and you have the flu and a 103 degree temperature and I got two hours of sleep last night because the six-week-old baby was teething and neither of us want to have sex, but we’re Catholic so we have to have sex 'cause otherwise we might not get pregnant this month!”

Of course not. In fact, if my husband said something like that to me I’d know he was joking, and would, appropriately, fling a pillow at his head in response.

Are these people even Catholic? It sounds to me as though they’re particularly virulent anti-Catholics–you know, the type who insist that all Catholics worship Mary idols no matter how many times you explain intercession to them. In which case, I would either avoid their company in order to avoid the irritation, or hand them a solid book on NFP and tell them to read it and get back to me.

People are expected to use prudence to discern the correct course of action within Church teaching. Church teaching does not have an entry in the CCC for every single situation; they have guidelines within which you make the appropriate decisions. The Church is not comprised of people who are doing the equivalent of mindlessly assembling burgers at a fast food restaurant. She is comprised of people who walk into HR on the first day of work and are handed a worker’s handbook. The employee should follow the workers’ handbook. It will not, however, detail every single event that could possibly be workplace harassment. The workplace expects the employee to discern that a friendly handshake on the first day of the job is physical contact between coworkers but not harassment, but that having one’s derriere grabbed while standing at the copy machine is even if derriere-grabbing is not listed by name under “workplace harassment” in the handbook.

Prudence within the guidelines is the key here. The guidelines date back to the Old Testament days and have been preserved by the Catholic Church. You might point out that until the Lambeth Conference in 1930, all mainstream Protestant churches taught, like the Catholic Church does today, that birth control was a terrible sin. Ask these people if these Churches taught a lie for all those years and, in that case, how they could have been founded by Christ since His Church couldn’t officially teach error.

 

[maryjk]

Tell me, are Catholics required to have sex every single day, whether or not they’re in the mood? “Honey, I know we’ve had sex every day for the last week and you have the flu and a 103 degree temperature and I got two hours of sleep last night because the six-week-old baby was teething and neither of us want to have sex, but we’re Catholic so we have to have sex 'cause otherwise we might not get pregnant this month!”

Of course not. In fact, if my husband said something like that to me I’d know he was joking, and would, appropriately, fling a pillow at his head in response.

Cannot … stop … laughing.

 

[Debora123]

And they are wrong to do so because the fact that NFP to avoid (ie periodic abstinance) is effective has nothing to do with its morality. There are many people who misunderstand Church teaching on this matter and who unfortunately spread their confusion to others. The fact that the Church considers contraception immoral but periodic abstinance moral has nothing to do with the effectiveness or intent behind either.

The Church teaches that there are three aspects of an action which determine its morality.

1. intent/ends
2. means
   3)circumstances

if any one of these aspects is immoral, then the whole action itself will also be immoral. The Church teaches that the intent to avoid children is not, in itself immoral. It teaches that given the right circumstances it can even be a laudable thing. So, the intent to avoid children, given the right circumstances, is moral no matter what means is used (whether contraception, periodic abstinence, or complete abstinence). So far there is absolutely no difference between NFP to avoid and Contraception.

The difference comes in when one looks at the means used. With NFP to avoid (or abstinence) all that happens is one gains knowledge about their fertility and factors this knowledge into their decisions of whether or not to have sex at any point in time. Contraception, on the other hand, changes the nature of sex by altering either ones biology or the mechanics of the act itself, or both. You might disagree with the Church about this, but it is this altering of the act of sex that the Church thinks is immoral. Not having sex with a low chance of getting pregnant, not intending to avoid children, but altering and disordering the act of sex.

Is that any clearer?

Wanderer, I LOVE your way of explaining things.

I guess for me it’s just hard to understand exactly WHY “altering the sex act” by wearing a condom is a sin… or better yet, how is the sex act altered by the use of a condom? I know this is what the Church teaches, and I would never deny that to myself or to anyone.

However, I must be honest here with my lack of understanding of exactly WHY wearing a rubber during sex is wrong.

Because if the intent is ok, and the circumstances are ok, then, as you said, the only aspect left that would make it gravely sinful would be the means… ie, wearing a condom. It just seems petty to me and I cannot for the life of me understand why doing so is so horribly wrong.

Oh, and I know we just talked about this yesterday and I know you know how I feel about it.
I’m just adding in my 2 cents for the rest of the discussion’s sake, so perhaps if the discussion could be moved to explaining exactly why wearing a condom is wrong, it would be more helpful to us struggling folks.

 

[The_Bucket]

To me Debora, it’s because it’s a lie. The reason contraception is wrong is because it is a flat out lie.

I’m not a huge Jason Evert guy or any of the other writers to be honest, but I think he was quite right when he explained that contraception is a lie. Sexuality is supposed to be a freely given gift of potential fertility and full intimacy. When you take steps to block the fertile aspect of it, it’s a lie. It’s saying “I don’t really want that part of you, just this part and this other part. Leave the fertility out. I just want the good feelings.”

That’s not to say that people who use contraception don’t love one another. And it’s not to say that they don’t attempt to express that love through sex that involves contraception. They do. But people also attempt marriage and end up in invalid unions, do they not? That’s how I view contraception. It’s “attempted intimacy.” It’s “attempted sex.” I daresay many people, including Catholics, who make such attempts are doing so in good faith and have no idea what they are doing is wrong, much less why it is wrong. But there are plenty of people who attempt marriage in good faith too only to find out later that they were wrong.

Using information about fertility is not the same thing as wearing a condom, using a diaphragm, taking a pill or even “pulling out.” I mean look, I concede that it’s a struggle. Other parts of the Church’s teaching on sexuality is rough as well; calling masturbation a mortal sin will pretty much get you labeled a “lunatic extremist” by anyone and everyone. But it is what it is.

God designed a woman to be fertile at certain times and to be infertile at others. Learning more about that design and incorporating it into our plans is perfectly acceptable. Taking matters “into our hands” to thwart said design so we can have our good feelings is a different thing altogether.

How contraception changes the sexual act is plain. You’re incorporating more than mere information into the act. And I don’t mean the mere fact that artificial devices are included because, well, you can bring in artificial devices to erm, enhance the experience, if you so desire. But you’re introducing dishonesty with contraception. Sexual congress is supposed to be the ultimate intimate experience. It can make us co-creators with God and gives us a semblance of immortality on this Earth through progeny.

Withholding anything, fertility or unity, makes it a lie.

 

[spunjalebi]

Sex is supposed to be rather simple. Without getting too detailed and making anyone uncomfortable, male part goes into female part, and male gametes enter female part. Female gamete is not prohibited from exercising its natural course. From my understanding of NFP, it’s about allowing all aspects of sexual intercourse, during sexual intercourse to occur. I for one, do not relish the idea of using hormones to tell my ovaries that my uterus is pregnant, because that in itself isn’t natural reproduction.

 

[spunjalebi]

Taking matters “into our hands” to thwart said design so we can have our good feelings is a different thing altogether.
.

Okay, here’s where I’ve heard a rebuttal to what you’ve just said. Isn’t having sex on your infertile days ONLY also a lie? I know NFP isn’t supposed to be used like that for life-- or can it be based on the circumstances of the couple?

 

[Cojuanco]

Couldn’t people argue that ABC is also using information and making a prudent decision?

The thing that’s really blocking me is the idea that Catholics are never ever EVER supposed to avoid pregnancy. People have this idea that we’re all supposed to have 20 kids or something and avoiding pregnancy is a bad thing and makes us hypocrites. Every time I try to explain that NFP doesn’t alter the sex act by using a barrier or changing a woman’s body, I’m responded with “avoiding sex is still altering the sex act.” Ugh, it’s so frustrating.

Nerds are welcome, btw.

On the second paragraph, I think you or your critics have been watching too much Monty Python.

-Fellow Nerd.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Okay, here’s where I’ve heard a rebuttal to what you’ve just said. Isn’t having sex on your infertile days ONLY also a lie? I know NFP isn’t supposed to be used like that for life-- or can it be based on the circumstances of the couple?

Well, it can be. It does depend on the circumstances of the couple. Some secular couples use NFP; they usually call it FAM, or Fertility Awareness Method, but it’s the same sympto-thermal method that a lot of Catholics use. They generally use it because they don’t want the woman to have to put a lot of really unhealthy chemicals into her system, and the secondary reasons for using it as birth control vary, of course, as they do with any couple.

A Catholic can use NFP wrongly, sure. They need to have a grave reason to deliberately postpone the possibility of getting pregnant with another child. NFP is a tool that provides information. So’s a computer. Either can be used wrongly, but that doesn’t mean that you refuse to use computers.

NFP can be used until a woman reaches menopause (essentially, for the fertile life of the wife) in grave situations. I know an older couple who had a child late in years (they also married very late, so this isn’t all that unusual). During the birth, something happened which caused permanent damage to the mother. Her doctors–and she went to several to confirm–all were unanimous: another pregnancy would, barring a supernatural miracle, kill her and the baby. After much discussion together and with a wise priest, the couple decided to abstain until she had gotten far enough into menopause that a doctor could say with certainty that she would never ovulate again. At the time I’m talking about, NFP was not as exact a science as it is now, and they didn’t want to risk her dying. In their case, fortunately, it wasn’t as long a time as it would have been for a younger couple. If this had happened now, then they could have instead used NFP very conservatively (ie, only in Phase 3) in order to avoid.

The key in deciding to use NFP to avoid is that there must be a serious reason for it. It’s been a little while since my marriage prep class, but off the top of my head the categories for using it to avoid include:

Health of the mother, both mental and physical: a doctor or midwife has said to wait for a time for physical health reasons, or the mother has a tendency to a mental illness (genuine depression, PPD, bipolar, etc, etc) which pregnancy could trigger or exacerbate, or having another baby would cause the mother (or, for that matter, father) severe stress because of the responsibilities, etc.

Societal: if the couple is living in, say, China, where having another baby means that the baby will probably be killed anyway via neglect or forced abortion or that the fines are so crushing that the parents won’t be able to provide for their children, then a couple may avoid. Similarly, if one is in the middle of a famine or financial depression or a natural disaster (Fukushima, for example) which would make caring for or providing for another child all but impossible or actually impossible, the couple may choose to avoid.

Eugenic reasons: the parents discover that they both carry genes which make it very likely that a child born to them will be severely ill in some way or other. They may choose to avoid in this situation. Such situations can also be short-term, ie, the wife is on chemotherapy which will cause horrendous birth defects if she becomes pregnant during the chemo regimine.

Economic reasons: the couple can’t afford the expenses associated with another child at that time.

Obviously, I can’t possibly include every rational scenario in this post in which a couple can choose to avoid.

Remember, NFP is a tool that, like every other tool, should be used with prudence. A computer is also a tool. NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, and a computer can be used to access internet pornography. In the former case, a couple should regularly examine their reasons for using it. In the latter, the computer should be used for good things and not immoral ones. Simply doing without a computer to avoid the possibility of internet porn isn’t feasible for most people nowadays, and not having a tool that can be used to wisely space children would make things very difficult for a lot of married couples.

The two key points here are a) that NFP is a tool, no more, no less and b) that contraception says “I love you except for your body’s inclination to make more children,” while NFP says (if used properly) “I love you, and I will wait rather than engage in an act of mutual masturbation in the marital embrace.” If the sexual act doesn’t occur, a la NFP, it can’t be a lie since the action itself doesn’t exist. If it occurs with condoms, then the condoms are an interference within the context of the act, rather than not engaging in the act in the first place.

Also, please note that unless there is a grave reason, one spouse cannot refuse the spouse sex without incurring grave sin. NFP has to be a mutual decision; it can never be unilateral, so in that sense it isn’t frustrating the act itself, either. (One spouse can refuse sex to the other for a very short list of grave reasons, but as that isn’t the focus of this discussion I won’t go there.)

 

[Debora123]

To me Debora, it’s because it’s a lie. The reason contraception is wrong is because it is a flat out lie.

I’m not a huge Jason Evert guy or any of the other writers to be honest, but I think he was quite right when he explained that contraception is a lie. Sexuality is supposed to be a freely given gift of potential fertility and full intimacy. When you take steps to block the fertile aspect of it, it’s a lie. It’s saying “I don’t really want that part of you, just this part and this other part. Leave the fertility out. I just want the good feelings.”

That’s not to say that people who use contraception don’t love one another. And it’s not to say that they don’t attempt to express that love through sex that involves contraception. They do. But people also attempt marriage and end up in invalid unions, do they not? That’s how I view contraception. It’s “attempted intimacy.” It’s “attempted sex.” I daresay many people, including Catholics, who make such attempts are doing so in good faith and have no idea what they are doing is wrong, much less why it is wrong. But there are plenty of people who attempt marriage in good faith too only to find out later that they were wrong.

Using information about fertility is not the same thing as wearing a condom, using a diaphragm, taking a pill or even “pulling out.” I mean look, I concede that it’s a struggle. Other parts of the Church’s teaching on sexuality is rough as well; calling masturbation a mortal sin will pretty much get you labeled a “lunatic extremist” by anyone and everyone. But it is what it is.

God designed a woman to be fertile at certain times and to be infertile at others. Learning more about that design and incorporating it into our plans is perfectly acceptable. Taking matters “into our hands” to thwart said design so we can have our good feelings is a different thing altogether.

How contraception changes the sexual act is plain. You’re incorporating more than mere information into the act. And I don’t mean the mere fact that artificial devices are included because, well, you can bring in artificial devices to erm, enhance the experience, if you so desire. But you’re introducing dishonesty with contraception. Sexual congress is supposed to be the ultimate intimate experience. It can make us co-creators with God and gives us a semblance of immortality on this Earth through progeny.

Withholding anything, fertility or unity, makes it a lie.

Thank you for the well thought out response.

I understand what you’re saying about incorporating something into sex to avoid/postpone pregnancy, and I understand how in NFP you’re not really “incorporating” the same thing in the same way.

This is going to sound really simplistic and will probably make me seem really shallow, but I just don’t get WHY doing that (incorporating) is such a big deal.

Let me try to explain. To me, this mentality just makes sex seem like it is reduced to simply a physical act that must be done in a specific sort of way… rather than seeing sex as a whole, if that makes sense. And of course, we all know that sex is not purely a physical act… it’s also about what is spiritually and emotionally happening to the 2 people involved. I feel as though a sexual experience between 2 married people can have just as much intimacy and self giving love and bonding if the climax doesn’t happen inside, and/or if they are using a condom to space children. The notion that marital sexual activity can ONLY be loving and self giving and bonding IF the sperm goes inside the woman just makes sex seem so shallow to me. There’s just something that doesn’t sit right with me about spouses not being allowed to express affection to each other sexually unless it ends with a vaginal climax.

Now, I’m not trying to say that all is fine and dandy and that a marriage doesn’t have to be open to life or that we don’t need just reasons to avoid. Of course I believe and understand those 2 things. I believe that a marriage, as a whole, needs to be one that is open to life and I believe that we need just reasons to avoid or postpone a pregnancy.

Given the intentions/circumstances to postpone children are just, I fail to comprehend why a sexual act between spouses becomes intrinsically evil because of a condom or a climax on a different part of the body. And I know you’ve answered this already on the very post I’m responding to lol… but it just doesn’t seem to logically follow for me for some reason.

 

[thewanderer]

Let me try to explain. To me, this mentality just makes sex seem like it is reduced to simply a physical act that must be done in a specific sort of way… rather than seeing sex as a whole, if that makes sense. And of course, we all know that sex is not purely a physical act… it’s also about what is spiritually and emotionally happening to the 2 people involved. I feel as though a sexual experience between 2 married people can have just as much intimacy and self giving love and bonding if the climax doesn’t happen inside, and/or if they are using a condom to space children. The notion that marital sexual activity can ONLY be loving and self giving and bonding IF the sperm goes inside the woman just makes sex seem so shallow to me. There’s just something that doesn’t sit right with me about spouses not being allowed to express affection to each other sexually unless it ends with a vaginal climax.

I think I see where you are coming from but I am not sure… You feel as though putting a restriction on it makes it no longer a spiritual or emotional experience?

hmm, I guess I really don’t see it that way. Lets take a step back. The Church teaching about sexuality is that it is the complete uniting of two people which has a two-fold end, unity and procreation. When people say that it is wrong to take an action to remove procreation from sexuality they are not saying that sexuality is only about procreation or only about the physical act, but instead they are saying that those are not the only important aspects of sexuality. The way I see it is that the one contracepting is removing part of the great complex mystery of sexuality and diminishing its meaning and the person saying “don’t contracept” is instead saying “don’t diminish the meaning of sexuality by removing one of its dual ends”. Does that make any more sense? I know that that is not how you are inclined to see things, but, does it help at all?